[2025:RJ-JP:40479-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 891/2025 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No.325/2019 Vijay@vijay Singh S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Behind Police Chouki Khanpur, Distt. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined At Distt. Jail Jhalwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Additional Government Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/10/2025 1. The matter is heard on the second application seeking suspension of sentence. 2. Counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant- accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act. 3. Counsel for the accused-applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules to the effect that accused-applicant is in judicial custody. Counsel for the applicant-accused submits that the applicant-accused has been [2025:RJ-JP:40479-DB] (2 of 3) [SOSA-891/2025] falsely implicated in this matter and he has already served the sentence for a period of almost eight years. It is accordingly prayed that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant- accused be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 4. This Court had previously adjudicated upon and dismissed the first application for suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant-accused by a reasoned order dated 20.04.2023. The said order reads, inter alia, as follows: “1. Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that injuries sustained by the victim was on account of overturning of the police vehicle. It is further contended that father of the victim had earlier also filed complaint with regard to outraging the modesty of his other daughter. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the present application for suspension of sentence. It is informed by learned Additional Government Advocate that victim has been intimated about filing of the criminal appeal as well as application for suspension of sentence. Report with regard to intimation has also been submitted before this Court and the same is taken on record. 5. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim. 6. We have perused the record. 7. On perusal of the statement of the victim as well as on perusal of the F.S.L. Report, we are not inclined to entertain the present application for suspension of sentence. 8. The present application for suspension of sentence is accordingly, dismissed.” 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the application seeking suspension of sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:40479-DB] (3 of 3) [SOSA-891/2025] 6. Upon careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the first application seeking suspension of sentence having been dismissed on merits, and in the absence of any material change in circumstances, except for the additional duration of incarceration undergone by the applicant-accused, no justifiable ground has been made out warranting a different conclusion at this stage. 7. Consequently, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 20.04.2023, the present (second) application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/3