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 time. On these submissions, learned counsel Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav representing the appellant/applicant implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentence and enlarge the appellant/applicant on bail during the pendency of appeal.

4. Per contra, learned Pubic Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the appellant/applicant and urged that the appellant/applicant and the co-accused were trying to force themselves upon the victim who resisted their advances. Upon this, the appellant and co-accused over powered the helpless girl and inflicted blade injuries on her neck. It is only because of the fortuitous circumstances that the victim survived their assault. She thus urged that the appellant/applicant does not deserve indulgence of bail during the pendency of appeal.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced at Bar and also perused the impugned judgment and record. The victim in her cross-examination agreed to defence suggestion that she did not know accused from before. The medical officer P.W.-2 Dr. Sumer Singh has not stated that the injuries caused to the victim were either life threatening or were grievous in nature.

6. In this background we are of the opinion that the appellant/applicant has available to him strong grounds for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction. The hearing of appeal is likely to consume time. The appellant has remained in custody for a period of more than four and a half years.

7. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant/applicant.

8. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 in Sessions Case No. 56/2018 (114/2016) against the appellant-applicant Mohammad Saddam Ali Khan S/o. Shri Mohammad Jafar Ali Khan, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 3.3.2021 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel