[2025:RJ-JP:47357] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1831/2025 IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1651/2023 Jeetraj Meena S/o Ramkhiladi, C/o Moti Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bardala, Police Station Nadauti, District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Uaganti Devi W/o Shivcharan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Bardala, Nadauti, District Karauli (Raj.) 3. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/11/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and learned State counsel on the second suspension of sentence application. 2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 452 & 376 of IPC vide judgment dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hindauncity (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No.83/2021 and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of twelve years. [2025:RJ-JP:47357] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1831/2025] 3. The first application for suspension of execution of sentence filed by the appellant-applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for suspension of sentence if appeal is not heard finally on or before 31.08.2025. An early listing application was also filed by the appellant-applicant despite this, appeal could not be heard finally. Now, this second application for suspension of execution of sentence has been filed on behalf of the appellant-applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- applicant submits that appellant-applicant has wrongly been convicted by the learned trial Court. Counsel submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in correct perspective. It is contended that maximum term of sentence is twelve years and appellant-applicant has already suffered incarceration of about five years including remission. It is submitted that at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix was aged about 20 years and there is no medical corroboration of the allegations levelled by her against the appellant-applicant. Counsel submits that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the alleged place of the incident is a thickly populated area. Despite this, the prosecution failed to produce any independent witness who saw the alleged incident or heard any hue and cry that the prosecutrix alleged to have raised at the relevant time. It is submitted that even though sister of the prosecutrix is reached at the spot immediately, prosecutrix did not disclose about the incident. In such circumstances, sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not enough to convict the petitioner for the alleged crime. [2025:RJ-JP:47357] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1831/2025] Counsel submits that looking to the large pendency of criminal appeals before this Court, appellant will serve the entire sentence till the time appeal will come for hearing. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for the appellant-applicant and submits that there is specific allegation against the appellant-applicant of committing rape upon the prosecutrix. He submits that as per the medico- legal report of the prosecutrix, an abrasion (erosion) of the mucosa measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm was noted on the lower portion of the vagina, and oozing of blood was also observed at the site of the injury. Counsel further submits that male DNA of the appellant-applicant has also been found on the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. 6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-applicant as well as learned State Counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record including judgment passed by learned trial Court, especially the fact that maximum term of sentence is twelve years out of which appellant-applicant has already suffered incarceration of about five years including remission, as also looking to the large pendency of criminal appeals before this Court and there is no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and disposed of in near future, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong grounds to assail the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Thus, it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the appellant-applicant during pendency of the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:47357] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1831/2025] 7. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Hindauncity (Rajasthan) judgment dated 31.05.2023 in Sessions Case No.83/2021 against the appellant-applicant Jeetraj Meena S/o Ramkhiladi 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 the Court on 23.12.2025 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 address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. 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- [2025:RJ-JP:47357] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1831/2025] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /4