[2026:RJ-JP:9726] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application No. 2486/2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2600/2022 Khushiram S/o Roshan Lal, Resident Of Nawalpura, Police Station Raj Garh, District Alwar (Rajasthan). (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/03/2026 1. The second application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 06.04.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2022 in Sessions Case No. 55/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act CAses) No.1, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/6, 5(j)(ii)/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 learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further [2026:RJ-JP:9726] (2 of 4) [SOSA-2486/2025] 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 while placing reliance upon judgment in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported as 2023 INSC 676 has submitted that age of victim has not been determined in accordance with law. He further submitted that the victim who claimed to be around 14 years was a student of Class-Xth at such tender age which is not possible to appear in examination of Class-Xth. He further submitted that neither Class-Xth certificate is filed nor birth certificate is filed to justify the date of birth claimed by the prosecution. He also referred judgment in case of Irfan @ Bhayu Mavati Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC Online SC 359 and submitted that collection of sampling and FSL report does not inspire confidence and the trial court has heavily placed reliance upon the FSL report. He also referred the statement of PW-1 victim and submitted that the deposition of victim is not of sterling worth. He further referred the prosecution evidence and submitted that there was no evidence to record conviction in the matter and appellant is in custody for last more than six years. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted latest custody certificate and same is taken on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. [2026:RJ-JP:9726] (3 of 4) [SOSA-2486/2025] 6. While considering first SOS application on 06.07.2023 we have considered merits of the case are observed as under: "In this matter, present appellant faced trial along with another accused Shri Ram who was acquitted by learned trial court. This appellant accused was enlarged on bail by order dated 11.03.2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 600/2022 but this bail was granted at fag end of trial. The present matter was registered on 08.01.2022 on written report Ex.P-7 wherein the incident of 07.01.2020 was alleged but after recovery of victim on 15.01.2020 her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and same was exhibited as Ex.P-1. The fact further reveals the victim was medically examined on 27.03.2020 and prior to it, no medical report was exhibited by prosecution. The twist in the matter came when pregnancy was detected and victim approached this court by way of writ petition No.240/2020 which was decided on 31.03.2020 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed for termination and preservation of fetus for the purpose of DNA test. This DNA report was exhibited as Ex.P-26 and from this DNA report was established that it was result of co- habitation by present appellant and there was no match of other accused. I have considered the conclusion drawn by learned trial court from para No.31 to 35 and also considered the deposition of other witnesses including PW-10 we cannot comment upon the manner in which learned trial court drawn its conclusion. Having considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein after full trial and on merits, the report of DNA was not believed as there were certain discrepancies found in sampling and forwarding of samples. Herein in this case, same can be considered when matter would be heard finally. We have also considered the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but looking to each and every aspect and looking to the nature of conclusion and further outcome of [2026:RJ-JP:9726] (4 of 4) [SOSA-2486/2025] cohabitation, I am of considered opinion that appellant is not entitled to be released on bail." 7. Till date, the appellant has undergone six years and five days as against awarded sentence of 20 years. The material on record clearly indicate that the age of victim which was determined by the trial court was less than 16 years. Moreover, the grounds as raised by learned counsel for appellant can only be considered at the time of final consideration of appeal, but not at this stage but the age of victim is required to be determined under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and as laid down in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State (supra). As regard to FSL report, we have already considered the FSL report which was filed in support of testimony of victim PW-1. 8. The material on record suggests that two persons Khushiram and Shriram have faced the trial but Shriram was acquitted from the charge and we have considered the evidence laid by PW-1 against both the accused but considering the entire material we are not convinced with the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant to enlarge appellant accused on bail. 9. Hence, the second application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /32