JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This application for suspension of sentence has been filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-appellant/applicant who has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav submitted that the prosecutrix victim has given contradictory evidence regarding the identification of the accused. He drew the Courts' attention more particularly to the cross-examination of prosecutrix P.W.-1, wherein she admitted that she did not know the accused from before. He also pointed out that no test identification proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer. He further drew Courts' attention to the statement of medical jurist P.W.-2 Dr. Sumer Singh and urged that none of the injuries noticed on the person of the victim were either grievous or life threatening. He has further submitted that the accused is in custody for the last four and half years and hearing of the appeal is likely to consume tim