[2025:RJ-JP:46697] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 81/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 527/2024 Rahul Yogi S/o Shri Gopal Yogi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Yogiyo Ki Dhani, Village Vishanpura, Post Thikariya Gujran, Police Station Kotkhawada Jaipur (South) Raj (At Present Under Judicial Custody Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Ratan Devi W/o Lallur Yogi, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Vishanpura, Post Thikariya Gujran, Police Station Tehsil Kotkhawada Jaipur (South) Raj ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma (Ganthola), Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. GA with Aman Agarwal, AAG Ms. Neha Goyal, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 19/11/2025 This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the appellant under Section 430 BNSS against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2024 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission, 2005 No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Sessions Case No. 61/2023, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, [2025:RJ-JP:46697] (2 of 4) [SOSA-81/2025] 376(2)(n) IPC and offence under Sections 3/4, 5/6 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced as under: U/s. 363 IPC: To undergo 3 years’ SI with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months’ simple imprisonment U/s. 366 IPC: To undergo 5 years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months’ simple imprisonment U/s. 3/4 of POCSO Act: To undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year’s simple imprisonment U/s. 5/6 of POCSO Act: To undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 years’ simple imprisonment U/s. 11/12 of POCSO Act: To undergo 3 years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months’ simple imprisonment Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged incident took place on 29.4.2023, whereas the report was lodged on 30.4.2023 i.e. one day later. He further submits that PW-3 Om Prakash (father of the prosecutrix) neither could disclose the date of birth of the prosecutrix nor could tell the date on which the birth certificate of the prosecutrix was issued. Thus, the prosecution has utterly [2025:RJ-JP:46697] (3 of 4) [SOSA-81/2025] failed to establish that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was minor. He further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix did not mention the exact date, on which the alleged offence was committed with her. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as the Court statement recorded as PW-1. He further submits that the prosecutrix had not made any hue and cry at the place where she stated to have gone with the accused appellant at her own volition. He further submits that as per Ex. P-07, the place of incident is other than the place which has been disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded as PW-1. He further submits that there is nothing on record to evince that the accused appellant was previously convicted. The appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is in judicial custody since 22.2.2024. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take long time, hence the sentence of the accused appellant be suspended. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the same. He submits that from birth certificate of the prosecutrix (Mark-01), marks sheet of Secondary Examination, 2022 (Ex.-P/04) and school record (Ex. P-08 A and P-09), which is duly corroborated from the evidence of PW-05 Dinesh Chand Sharma, officiating Head Master, Government Primary School, Vishanpura, Tehsil Kotkhawda, District Jaipur, it is well established that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 8.5.2006. In this way, [2025:RJ-JP:46697] (4 of 4) [SOSA-81/2025] as on the date of incident i.e. 29.4.2023, she was minor. He further submits that the place of incident is village Vishanpura which is clear from the site plan (Ex.P-16) prepared in this matter. He further submits that the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the sentence of the accused appellant should not be suspended. Despite the information given to the complainant, no one has appeared on his / her behalf. Heard learned counsel for the parties considered the material on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the prosecutrix, statement of the victim and the evidence available on record, but without going into the merits and demerits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant. The suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/21