JUDGMENT :

Prakash Gupta, J.

1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was on bail during trial. There is no cogent evidence that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of incident. There are material contradictions in the statement of mother of prosecutrix. The appellant and prosecutrix were having the love affairs and she resided with the appellant for about a week. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter, hence sentence awarded to him by the court below is required to be suspended.

3. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.

4. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant.

5. Accordingly, this suspension of sentence application is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to the accused appellant Rahul Nayak S/o. Sitaram by the trial court vide judgment dated 8.1.2020 in Sessions Case No. 237/2017 shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 18.2.2021 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so.