[2025:RJ-JP:42228] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Second Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 523/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2870/2023 Vinod S/o Pankhi, R/o Kashirampura, PS Sadar Karauli Distt. Ka- rauli (Raj) (At Present In Central Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh with Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/10/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence. 2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offences under Section 376(3) of IPC and Section 5(Jii)(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Karauli (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:42228] (2 of 4) [SOSA-523/2025] in Sessions Case No.35/2023 (CIS No.35/2023) and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of 20 years. 3. Vide order dated 05.09.2024, first application for suspension of execution of sentence was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Now this, second application for suspension of execution of sentence has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the applicant as mentioned above. Counsel submits that after rejection of first application for suspension of execution of sentence, more than a year has been passed but till date, the appeal has not been finally decided. He submits that appellant-applicant has served incarceration of nearly two years and seven months. He also argues that there is no substantive evidence against the appellant- applicant as victim as well as her parents did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile. He submits that conviction of the appellant-applicant is based solely on the basis of DNA report. He further submits that a DNA report is merely an opinion of the expert and evidentiary value of the DNA is only corroborative and on the basis of such corroborative piece of evidence, no conviction can be recorded in absence of substantial evidence particularly when the victim and her family members have not supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances, it would be justified that the application is accepted and the execution of sentence is suspended particularly when there is no prospect of final hearing of this appeal in near future. [2025:RJ-JP:42228] (3 of 4) [SOSA-523/2025] 5. Learned State counsel opposes the application for suspension of execution of sentence. He submits that it is true that victim of this case has not supported the prosecution case but it cannot be ignored that on account of sexual exploitation, victim of this case became pregnant but her pregnancy of three months was automatically aborted. The product of conception of victim was sent to FSL for DNA examination and according to the DNA report, the appellant-applicant is the biological father of the product of conception of victim. Learned stated counsel also draws attention of the Court towards the evidence of Dr. 9 Dr. Reena Meena. He further submits that victim/complainant has duly been informed about hearing of this application for suspension of execution of sentence. 6. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of victim/complainant. 7. It is apparent from the record that neither efforts were made by counsel for the appellant to get listed the appeal for final hearing nor matter was mentioned before the concerned Bench having roster, therefore, merely period of incarceration cannot be a sole basis for entertaining the present application for SOS. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the material available on record including DNA report as per which the source of male DNA profile obtained from product of conception of victim is biological son of source of female DNA profile of the victim and Male DNA of the appellant [2025:RJ-JP:42228] (4 of 4) [SOSA-523/2025] and testimony of PW-9 Dr. Rina Meena, I am not inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of execution of sentence. 8. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of execution of sentence is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /33