[2026:RJ-JP:33699] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1676/2026 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 16/2023 CNR: RJHC020674982026 | URN: SOSA / 3002U / 2026 Govind @ Golu S/o Ramcharan, Resident Of Khandevla, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur) ----appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For appellant(s) : Mr. Aryaveer Singh Mr. Varun Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 20/08/2026 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant-Govind @ Golu Son Of Ramcharan in appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2022 in Sessions Case No.81/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Sawaimadhopur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 447, 354B, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law [2026:RJ-JP:33699] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1676/2026] learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that first SOS of present appellant was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 8- 5-2025 and the appellant accused is in custody and the period of custody is more than six years and five months. He also submitted that appeal of present appellant has not been considered for hearing and the appellant is facing incarceration. He also submitted that age of present appellant is 20 years and that of victim was almost 18 years. He also submitted that this is a case of consent and only under the pressure of family of victim, present appellant was implicated as anaccused. He also submitted that allegation is not against present appellant rather upon other accused. He further referred the contradiction in the evidence and submitted that appellant has a strong case to succeed appeal. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:33699] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1676/2026] 6. First SOS of present appellant was considered by this Court on 08-05-2025 wherein we have observed as under: "5. On 29.01.2020 father of victim PW-1 has filed Ex.P-1 about forcible rape by Yogesh, Govind and one unknown person. Witnesses Shakeer, Brij Mohan were named in the FIR. On the basis of report, FIR No.22/2020 under Section 447, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act was registered at P.S. Khandar, Sawaimadhopur. Initially the another appellant Yogesh was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against him. After trial, Yogesh was convicted on 23.12.2020. Thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Govind @ Golu and charge was framed against him. The prosecution has examined 21 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Two documents Ex.C1 and C2 were exhibited by Court. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence DW-1 Ram Charan was examined. Learned trial court has convicted appellant under Sections 447, 354B, 376D IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to appellant is 20 years. 6. Accused Yogesh has also filed criminal appeal No.76/2021 aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2020 in sessions case No.20/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Sawaimadhopur and his SOS application No.41/2021 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2024 with liberty to renew prayer, if appeal is not heard finally on or before 31.05.2025. 7. The period of incarceration of petitioner accused till date is 4 years 10 months 16 days and appellant remained in custody through out the period of trial though police has kept investigation pending against him under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 8. In report Ex.P-1 complainant has claimed victim as minor and Ex.P6 to P-8 were produced by prosecution with supporting evidence of PW-8 Mohan Singh, to prove that victim is minor It is an admitted position that no birth certificate was filed at the time of admission but the [2026:RJ-JP:33699] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1676/2026] admission form was filed several years before the incident. We have considered the statement of father of victim recorded as PW-1 before the trial court. The age of victim cannot be estimated on the basis of oral evidence of PW-1. The material on record is proved by PW-8 and as per Section 94 of JJ Act, the trial court has determined the age of victim and same is less than 18 years or between 17-18 years. If, there is any ground then same can be considered at the time of final adjudication. The evidence of victim suggest that 3 persons came on Apache and Yogesh and Govind both have dragged her and committed rape with her. The victim has deposed that initially Yogesh has committed rape with her and thereafter Govind committed rape with her. On noticing presence behind standing crop of Mustard, PW-1 found Govind and Yogesh but when he caught Yogesh and Govind, they ran away. This evidence was further corroborated by PW-3 Mangi Lal. Somewhat corroborations were made by PW-4 Brij Mohan and PW-5 Gauri Shankar, who also reached the spot. 9. The evidence of PW-7 Dr. Shimla Meena suggest that no injuries were found on genital of victim but there were some abrasions on posterior region of body of victim. Learned counsel for appellant has referred FSL report and we have considered FSL report Ex.C1 and C2. Human semen was present on underwear/salwar and kurta of victim. Similarly human semen was also detected on vulvo vaginal slid and swab of victim. The DNA report Ex.C2 indicated that the stains were matching with DNA profile of Yogesh and same is not matching with Govind. 10. It is a case of gangrape and evidence on record clearly suggest involvement of present appellant and Yogesh. The victim has corroborated that appellant and Yogesh have committed rape with her and the surrounding circumstances were further corroborated from other evidence. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has referred evidence of DW-1 Ramcharan and some documents as exhibited by him in defence to indicate financial transactions [2026:RJ-JP:33699] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1676/2026] with complainant. Herein this case, if report is registered only to implicate appellant, then he could have made representation to police, but instead of making representation, he did not participated in initial investigation and remained absconded till conclusion of trial against Yogesh. The conduct of appellant is also evident on record therefore looking to overall facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to enlarge appellant on bail." 7. The material on record clearly indicate that it is a case of gang rape and there are witnesses who witnessed the incident and on the basis of the evidence the trial court has drawn the conclusion. The discrepancies and the contradictions as referred by learned counsel requires consideration, but the trial court has drawn a conclusion against the appellant and convicted him for a period of 20 years. 8. The custody certificate indicates that the appellant accused is in custody since 31-8-2020 and the period of custody is more than six years and five months. The case is of gang rape and life imprisonment is 20 years, therefore, this is not a fit case to enlarge appellant accused on bail. 9. Hence, the third application of SOS preferred by appellant accused- Govind @ Golu S/o Ramcharan is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 31/Chetna