[2026:RJ-JP:8055] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 131/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1284/2025 Child in Conflict With Law “H @ HM son of MB, (age at the time of incident 17 Years 11 Months 12 Days), Resident pf Khanpuriya, Tehsil Mangrole, District Baran. At present G Block, Nakoda Colony, Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Rajasthan) ----Child in Conflict with Law / Accused appellant (At Present Confined in Central Jail Kota) Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Addl. GA Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Dy. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 20/02/2026 1. This S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension of Sentence Application has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2025 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.1 Baran in Sessions Case No. 04/2022 (CIS No. 10/2022), whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 (2) of [2026:RJ-JP:8055] (2 of 4) [SOSA-131/2026] the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced as under: Offence Punishment Fine In default of Payment of fine U/s. 363 IPC: To undergo 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- To further undergo 1 month’s simple imprisonment U/s. 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act: To undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs. 50,000/- To further undergo1 year’s simple imprisonment 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged incident took place on 13.11.2021, but the FIR was lodged on 15.11.2021 i.e. two days after the date of alleged incident. He further submits that the alleged place of incident is the open place in a residential colony. Thus, it was not possible for the appellant to commit the alleged offence. He further submits that during trial victim has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version. 3. He further submits that per medical examination report (Ex.P/3) of the prosecutrix, there was no sign of forceful intercourse. It was a matter of love affair and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. 4. He further submits that the accused appellant is in custody since 9.5.2025. The disposal of appeal is likely to take long time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Despite information, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant. [2026:RJ-JP:8055] (3 of 4) [SOSA-131/2026] 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State assisted by learned PP and learned Dy. GA have opposed the same and submit in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC as well as under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix levelled specific allegations against the accused appellant with regard offence committed with her. He further submits that as per Certificate dated 16.11.2021 issued by Principal, Abenezer English School, Jhalawar Road, Baran (Ex. P- 14) and student admission form (Ex.P-15A) the prosecutrix date of birth is 9.1.2007, which has remained unrebutted. The said date of birth has also been corroborated from the oral evidence of PW-7 Manju Hada, Principal Abenezer English School, Jhalawar Road, Baran. Thus, it is well established that on the date of incident, she was aged about 14 years & 10 months and thus, minor. 7. He further submits that from DNA report, blood sample of accused matched with the profile obtained from semen stains detected on the underwear of victim. Further, blood sample of accused on FTA card and alleles of female DNA profile obtained from blood sample of victim on FTA card are accounted in the mixed DNA profile obtained from two condoms. Blood sample of accused has also been matched with the DNA profile obtained from vaginal swab of victim. Thus, the trial court on the basis of material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, and therefore, the sentence of the accused appellant should not be suspended. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties considered the material on record. [2026:RJ-JP:8055] (4 of 4) [SOSA-131/2026] 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the prosecutrix, statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as the DNA report, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant. 10. Accordingly this IInd suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/20