[2026:RJ-JP:829] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 3rd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 2538/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.994/2019 Ramu Son Of Rajveer Singh, Aged About 29 Years, At Present Residing At Village Samona Khandpura, Police Station Rajakhera, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) Presently Confined In District Jail, Dholpur ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/01/2026 1. The instant third suspension of sentence application is preferred by appellant Ramu Son Of Rajveer Singh in pending appeal arising out of order of conviction and sentence dated 02.04.2019 in Sessions Case No.49/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, Cases), Dholpur whereby appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 376(1) and 302 IPC but learned trial court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law [2026:RJ-JP:829] (2 of 5) [SOSA-2538/2025] 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 the Appellant submits that the trial court has sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 20 years under Section 376A IPC and till date the appellant has already undergone more than 50% of the sentence, as the appellant was taken into judicial custody on the date of arrest i.e. 01.12.2015. He further submits that after the order of conviction dated 02.04.2019, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence before this Hon’ble Court and the appeal is pending for more than 7 years and there is no likelihood that the appeal will be considered in the near future. He further submits that the trial court has ignored material contradictions and discrepancies in the entire case, as there is no eyewitness to the incident and the statement recorded by the police, Exhibit P-1, is itself not admissible. He also submits that most of the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore the appellant is entitled to bail on merits as well as on the ground of long period of custody. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the Learned Public Prosecutor. [2026:RJ-JP:829] (3 of 5) [SOSA-2538/2025] 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. The present appellant is in custody since his arrest on 01.12.2015. FIR No. 223/2015 was registered at Police Station Raja Kheda on the basis of the statement of the victim, who was critically injured due to burn injuries and was admitted in the Burn Unit, Kamla Raja Hospital, Gwalior (M.P.). After investigation, the present appellant was arrested on 01.12.2015 and charge-sheet was filed against him. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he also examined himself in defence. 7. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 302 IPC, while acquitting him of the charge under Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, the trial court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 20 years under Section 376A IPC. 8. This Court has considered the first application for suspension of sentence on 26.04.2023, and while considering the said application, this Court observed as under: “Herein, the allegation, which were found proved by learned trial court, on the basis of deposition of witnesses produced by prosecution. The criminal case was registered on the basis of parcha bayan of victim admitted in hospital of Gwalior, after recording her statement on 26.11.2015, recorded after a certificate of fitness by medical officer clearly indicate that when victim was sleeping in her room than appellant came and raped her and when threatened to complain to her mother, he burnt her and on the basis of this [2026:RJ-JP:829] (4 of 5) [SOSA-2538/2025] statement FIR was registered. Thereafter, victim succumbed to death and FSL Ex.P37 dated 28.09.2016 suggest that human semen was detected from Ex.5 i.e. chadi of victim. Herein, the evidence of PW1 mother of victim supports the parcha bayan of victim made after incident of burn but before death. The allegations of rape with murder were found proved by learned trial court.” 9. The material on record indicates that on the basis of Parcha Bayan recorded by the police on 26.11.2015, the report was registered on the same day. The dying declaration of the victim was also recorded by the Additional Tehsildar, Gwalior, and the same was exhibited as Exhibit-36. The Tehsildar appeared as PW-22 and perused her statement including cross-examination. The material on record including the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to draw a conclusion that this is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail, as the allegations are serious and grave and the same were found proved by the trial court. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to bail on merits. 10. Now comes the question whether the appellant, who has undergone more than 10 years out of the awarded sentence, is entitled for suspension of sentence on the ground of period of custody. 11. There is no dispute that the appellant has already undergone more than 50% of the sentence, as he is in custody since 01.12.2015. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years. However, the material on record clearly indicates that in her [2026:RJ-JP:829] (5 of 5) [SOSA-2538/2025] dying declaration, the victim specifically stated that she was raped by the appellant and after rape she was burnt and ultimately succumbed to the burn injuries. 12. Considering the gravity of the offence, the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of completion of 50% of the sentence for seeking suspension of sentence. 13. Accordingly, third SOS application preferred by appellant Ramu is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. 14. List criminal appeal for hearing in the month of February, 2026. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /31