[2025:RJ-JP:42498] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc II Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 696/2023 Taj Mohammad S/o Shri Karim Shah, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Sanyi Ka Takiya Nadi Dritya, Gram Pachayat Duamda, Police Station Mangaliyawas, District Ajmer (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. JP Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing) Order 16/10/2025 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment dated 17.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.2, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.75/2020 (CIS No.75/2020) whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of 10 years’ R.I. under Section 376, 376(2)(I) (n) of IPC and lesser punishment for the other offences under Sections 67 & 67A of the IT Act. [2025:RJ-JP:42498] (2 of 5) [SOSA-696/2023] 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the correct, legal and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt, therefore, the same is required to be appreciated again by this Court. Hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the application for suspension of sentence may be granted. 3. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant for releasing the appellant on application for suspension of sentence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. The first application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on 04.01.2023, having been withdrawn at the instance of the applicant. 6. The merits of the case have not been considered thus far. The applicant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo ten years of imprisonment. Additionally, he has been sentenced to lesser terms for certain minor offences; however, the longest sentence imposed is ten years. The applicant has been languishing in jail for over four years. The appeal has already been admitted for a further appreciation of both the legal and factual aspects of the matter. However, due to the substantial backlog before this Court, there appears to be little prospect of the appeal being heard and disposed of in the near future. [2025:RJ-JP:42498] (3 of 5) [SOSA-696/2023] In light of these circumstances, this Court is compelled to critically examine the prosecution’s case. 7. The victim in this case is a thirty-three-year-old married woman. The manner in which she is said to have established a physical relationship with the applicant has been seriously challenged by learned counsel for the applicant, who contends that the victim’s explanations are fabricated and render her an unreliable witness. The submission that the protocol prescribed under Section 25(b) of the Indian Evidence Act was not strictly followed, either in letter or spirit, and therefore the electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to establish the guilt of the applicant, merits consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the Court’s attention to PW No. 21, Shankar, the husband of the victim, arguing that if his testimony is accepted in its entirety, the prosecution’s case collapses. A perusal of PW 21’s statement reveals serious aspersions cast on his wife. He alleges her elopement first with the applicant and subsequently with another person, further accusing her of falsely implicating the applicant and thereby destroying his life. He also admitted during cross-examination the falsity of some of the allegations. 9. There is no corroborative evidence to strengthen the solitary testimony of PW 3. Indeed, the applicant has a strong arguable case in his favour. If the issues raised by him in the [2025:RJ-JP:42498] (4 of 5) [SOSA-696/2023] appeal are decided in his favour, he may succeed and be acquitted. 10. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice and taking into account the aforementioned facts, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court shall remain suspended until the disposal of the appeal. 11. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned trial Court, the details of which are provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-applicant named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 17.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- (1) That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. (2) That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. (3) Similarly, if the sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:42498] (5 of 5) [SOSA-696/2023] 12. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. (FARJAND ALI),J Samvedana/18