[2026:RJ-JP:6344] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 268/2025 Vijendra @ Vijay Son Of Shri Kajodmal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of House No. 994, Manoharpur Kachchi Basti, Jagatpura, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur) ----appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent For appellant(s) : Mr. Dev Krishna Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh K. Pareek Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/02/2026 1. This third application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant - Vijendra @ Vijay Son Of Shri Kajodmal, in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 02.08.2022 in Sessions Case No.27/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act cases) no.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363 IPC and 3/4 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 learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked [2026:RJ-JP:6344] (2 of 4) [SOSA-268/2025] 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 the appellant submitted that the appellant has already undergone six years and three months and twenty five days against the awarded sentence of 20 years. He further submitted that there is no likelihood that the appeal will be considered for hearing in the near future. He also referred to the grounds on merits and submitted that the appellant has a strong case to succeed in the appeal. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. After the conviction dated 02-08-2022 in Sessions Case No. 27/2021, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before this Court, and the same was admitted for consideration. While considering the first SOS application on 31-03-2023, we observed as under: “The victim was examined as PW-4 before learned trial court whereas father of victim was examined as PW-1 and mother of victim as PW- 2. The statements clearly indicate that present appellant is maternal uncle of victim, therefore, it is established that there is a family relationship between these two individuals. The report Ex.P1, which was registered by PW-1 clearly indicated that the name of present appellant was mentioned and [2026:RJ-JP:6344] (3 of 4) [SOSA-268/2025] allegation of enticing away her girl having age of 17 years was made on him. The victim was recovered on 16.10.2019. Thereafter, she has expressed her desire to reside with her parents and this was recorded as Ex.P6. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.10.2019 and same was Exhibited as Ex.D2 but the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.10.2019 and same was Exhibited as Ex.P9 after the charge-sheet the victim was examined as Ex.P4. The deposition was recorded in form of questions and answers and it clearly indicate that allegation of wrong doing was made on present appellant. FSL report Ex.D3, which was referred clearly indicated that no human semen was detected on underwear, vaginal swab/smear of victim. Herein, PW-1 and PW-2 clearly indicated that they were not aware about date of birth of other children, though, it was admitted by PW-1 that in one of Aadhar Card, the date of birth of victim is 01.01.2001. PW-8 Mahesh was examined to prove the date of birth of victim, which clearly indicates that the document, which were of prior to date of incident. Aforesaid school record clearly indicates that the date of birth of victim was 13.08.2002 as concluded by learned trial court otherwise also date of birth as provided in Aadhar Card cannot be considered as conclusive proof of date of birth for the purpose determination of age wherein other material on record is available. No other suggestion other than as that of date of birth as discussed herein was made in learned trial court. The victim has clearly indicated involvement of present appellant who is maternal uncle of victim.” [2026:RJ-JP:6344] (4 of 4) [SOSA-268/2025] 7. Thereafter, the appellant filed the second SOS application, and the same was considered by this Court on 26-02-2024, and we dismissed the second SOS application. Now, this is the third SOS application filed by the appellant. 8. This Court has already considered the grounds as raised in support of the SOS application, and there is no need to revisit them. The appellant has been awarded the maximum punishment of 20 years, and the custody certificate indicates that the appellant has served more than 6 years, 4 months, and 25 days against the awarded sentence. The material on record indicates that the victim is the niece of the present appellant, and the same is admitted by the present appellant in his statement as DW-1, recorded on 28-4-2022 before the trial Court. Thus, this is a case where the victim has alleged rape against her own mama (maternal uncle). Having considered the material on record, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant- accused, even after undergoing more than six years, four months and twenty five days against the awarded sentence. 9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the SOS application of the applicant accused. 10. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Vijendra @ Vijay Son Of Shri Kajodmal, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /25