HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.113/2024 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.140/2024 Kaluram @ Sunil @ Chhati Son Of Shri Nandkishor Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Aliganj Mohalla, Kamal Talkies Ke Pichhe, Chhabra District Baran At Present Tenant Masjid Wali Gali, Balakund Police Station Dadabari, Kota (Raj) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Applicant-appellant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajender Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GA/PP Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/10/2025 1. Counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely booked in this case and the allegations of rape are not corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the evidence of other persons namely PW-6 Ankit Pathak and PW-7 Rahul Swami. Counsel submits that as per the statements of the aforesaid two witnesses, no such incident of rape has occurred in their cafe. Counsel submits that as per the statements of PW-14, the prosecutrix was wandering with the appellant on a motorbike and (2 of 2) [SOSA-113/2024] subsequently, the appellant has been falsely booked in this case. Counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since last more than three years and disposal of the appeal is bound to take its time, so the sentence awarded to the appellant be suspended till disposal of the intant appeal. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the date of occurrence, the age of the appellant was 27 years, while the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years i.e., 15 years and 09 months. Counsel submits that as per allegations and statements of the prosecutrix PW-1 “P”, there are clear and specific allegation of committing rape against the appellant and she was minor at the relevant time, hence, sentence awarded to the appellant be not suspended and application for suspension of sentence submitted by the appellant be rejected. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. After arguing the matter, counsel for the appellant wants to withdraw the suspension of sentence application. 5. Accordingly, the instant suspension of sentence application is dismissed as withdrawn. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/34