Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, J.
Mosin Khan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 1888 of 2019 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2667 of 2019
Decided On : 06-08-2021
[SUSPENSION] - [SENTENCE] - [The court allowed the applications for suspension of sentence based on the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the hostile testimony of the prosecutrix's husband, and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against the appellants. The court emphasized the absence of obscene material and the prosecutrix's denial of prior statements, leading to the conclusion that the appellants' continued custody was unwarranted.]
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix delayed lodging the FIR by two months, and her husband, a key witness, turned hostile, denying knowledge of the incident. The prosecutrix also denied making statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and claimed no obscene material was shown to her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the FIR, the hostile testimony of the prosecutrix's husband, and the lack of corroborative evidence significantly undermined the prosecution's case. The court noted that the prosecutrix had not seen any obscene material and had not provided prior statements.
Issues: Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of evidence warranted the suspension of the appellants' sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the significant delay in filing the FIR, coupled with the hostile testimony and absence of evidence, justified the suspension of the sentence, as the appellants had already spent three years in custody without sufficient grounds for continued detention.
Result: The applications for suspension of sentence were allowed, with the condition that the appellants furnish a personal bond and sureties to ensure their appearance in court.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.
2. It is contended by counsels for the appellants that there is a delay of two months in lodging of FIR. Prosecutrix has stated that her husband asked to lodge the FIR. It is also contended that P.W. 1-Firoz Khan (husband of prosecutrix) has turned hostile. He has stated that he is not aware of any incident. It is further contended that prosecutrix-P.W. 2 has denied giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. She has also denied that she was shown some obscene photographs or video clippings. It is also contended that prosecutrix has given evidence that she informed her husband about the incident on the same day. However, no FIR was lodged on that day and the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of two months. It is further contended that appellants have been acquitted for offence of Sections 384 and 323 IPC. It is also contended that appellants have remained in custody for a period of about three years.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for suspension of sentence.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. Prosecutrix is a married lady who has lodged the present FIR after an inordinate delay of two months. Her husband has turned hostile. Court below has acquitted the accused persons for offence under Sections 384 and 323 of I.P.C. No obscene material has been recovered and prosecutrix herself has stated that she has not seen any obscene video clippings. Prosecutrix has also stated that she has not given any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. & and 164 Cr.P.C. Appellants have remained in custody for a period of about three years.
6. Considering the contentions of counsel for the appellants and taking note of the above facts, applications for suspension of sentence are allowed.
7. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-applicants in Session Case No.576/2018 shall remain suspended if the appellants furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that they shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.
8. A copy of this order be placed in connected files.
The court established that delays in lodging FIRs and the credibility of witness testimonies are critical factors in determining the appropriateness of suspending sentences in criminal cases.
The court established that delays in reporting and inconsistencies in testimony can impact the credibility of the prosecution's case, influencing decisions on bail and sentence suspension.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the accused shows circumstances such as prior bail status, marriage to the prosecutrix, and delays in FIR filing, indicating a potential for prolonged appeal.
Suspension of sentence is justified where reasonable doubt exists regarding the prosecution's case, particularly considering the victim's mental state and circumstances surrounding the FIR.
The court established that the suspension of sentence can be granted based on the merits of the case and the reliability of evidence, particularly in cases involving serious allegations under the POC....
Evidence of a prolonged relationship can influence the decision for suspending a sentence under IPC provisions, particularly where the victim's testimony supports the defense.
The court established that under Section 389 Cr.P.C., a convicted individual may have their sentence suspended if there are substantial grounds for appeal.
Prima facie evaluation of evidence and statements of the prosecutrix supported the appellant's claim of consent, leading to the grant of suspension of sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
