[2026:RJ-JP:25352] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1877/2024 URN: SOSA / 3244U / 2024 Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Keshari Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Village Kakrawada, Gram Panchayat Bamori, Tehsil Dingod, Police Station Dingod, District Kota, At Present Tenant Plot No. A-161, Krishna Kunj Colony, Badharana, Police Station Vishvakrma, Jaipur. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned State counsel and perused the material available on record. 2. The applicant herein has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 5(m)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Sessions Case No.05/2022, and has been sentenced to undergo twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of [2026:RJ-JP:25352] (2 of 3) [SOSA-1877/2024] Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the 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 and proper perspective. It is contended that the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies, as the statement of PW-2 ‘victim’ is not properly considered by the learned trial Court as no test identification parade was conducted and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as her deposition before the trial Court contains material inconsistency. It is further submitted that the prosecution version remains uncorroborated and the medical evidence which forms the sole basis of conviction is also not corroborated by other evidence. It is further contended that the conviction recorded on the basis of the DNA report (Exhibit P-5), by itself is not conclusive without material corroboration from other evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 08.02.2022 and has already undergone substantial incarceration and looking to the large pendency of criminal appeals before this Court, there is no immediate prospect of this appeal being heard and disposed of in near future. Counsel further submits that in these circumstances, it is urged that the execution of sentence imposed upon the applicant deserves to be suspended during the pendency of appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:25352] (3 of 3) [SOSA-1877/2024] 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant and submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt and considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the sentence awarded, no case for suspension of execution of sentence is made out, therefore, the present application for suspension of sentence may be dismissed. Counsel further submits that the victim/complainant has duly been informed about hearing of this application for suspension of execution of sentence. 5. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant. 6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the 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 considering the testimony of child victim as well as of the medical witness, prima facie, this Court does not find it a fit case to suspend the execution of sentence awarded to the applicant during pendency of the instant appeal. 7. Accordingly, the present application for Suspension of Execution of Sentence stands dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 33/Manoj Solanki