[2026:RJ-JP:1769] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2253/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3332/2024 Sachin Son of Late Shri Rambabu, Resident of Near Gopalji-Ka- Mandir, Kumher Gate, Weir District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Dharmendra Kumar for Mr. Kapil Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/01/2026 1. The instant 2nd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by the appellant-applicant accused Sachin Son of Late Shri Rambabu (hereinafter referred to ‘the appellant’) in pending appeal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2024 in Sessions Case No.81/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Section 376(2) (n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of ₹25,000/-. 2. Learned learned the counsel for the appellant accused submits that initially appellant accused Sachin was charged under [2026:RJ-JP:1769] (2 of 3) [SOSA-2253/2025] section 5/6 of POCSO Act, alternatively 376(2)(n) of IPC but the trial Court after recording the statement, has drawn a conclusion that the date of birth of the victim is 29.01.2001 instead of 29.01.2002 as claimed by prosecution. The victim-prosecutrix is an adult female on date of incident and a report has been registered after a delay. He further referred the discrepancies and material contradictions and submitted that the trial Court ignored all these aspects while considering the material brought before the trial Court. He also submitted that the appellant is a young person and he is in custody for quite some time though he was on bail during trial. He also submitted that the appellant accused was awarded fixed term sentence, therefore, he is entitled for grant of suspension of sentence. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned public prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Learned public prosecutor had submitted custody certificate along with report received from concerned police station. 4. The first suspension of sentence application of present appellant was considered by this court on 15.04.2025 and present appellant was convicted under section 376(2)(n) of IPC and not under the POCSO Act. The victim was adjudged as adult on the basis of her date of birth dated 29.01.2001. While considering the material on record, we have dismissed the suspension of sentence application on 15.04.2025. It is on record that initially present appellant was absconded, but later, he was taken in custody and was released on bail during trial. The period of custody of present appellant clearly indicates that he is in custody for around one year and six months. [2026:RJ-JP:1769] (3 of 3) [SOSA-2253/2025] 5. Considering the gravity of charge and the material already considered by this court while dismissing the first suspension of sentence application on 15.04.2025, no circumstance has changed which requires the court to release the appellant on bail. 6. In view of aforesaid, the second application for suspension of sentence preferred by the appellant Sachin Son of Late Shri Rambabu is hereby dismissed. 7. List the criminal appeal for hearing in the month of April 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/8