The court emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence and the importance of the prosecutrix's age in sexual offense cases under IPC and POCSO Act.

ORDER

1. Heard on applications for suspension of sentence.

2. The appellants have filed the appeals along with applications for suspension of sentence.

3. The appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2021 and 24.02.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, Karauli (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No. 144/2018 (CIS No. 144/2018), by which the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 363 read with 120-B IPC, 366-A read with 120-B IPC, 376-D of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to maximum term of twenty years.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the cases. The prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. Her date of birth has not been proved by cogent and reliable evidence by the prosecution. The prosecutrix has herself admitted that at the time of incident, she was above 18 years of age. The statement of prosecutrix are unreliable. Her statement suffers from material contradictions and infirmities. In her cross-examination, she has resiled from her statement given under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has admitted that the FIR was dictated by the Police to her and further there is admission of the prosecutrix that her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were given according to the pressure of Police and other people. She has further admitted that at the time of her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she did not know the accused by name. No identification parade was conducted during the investigation. Her age as per her "Aadhar Card" and "Ration Card" is of the year 2000, according to which, she is major. There was no admission in the 1st class but she was directly admitted to the 4th Class. As per the statement of prosecutrix, she was not knowing about the names of the accused-persons till the recording of the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was also tutored, as per her own version. Therefore, the prosecution case can not be relied upon. Further, it has been argued that the DNA report, upon which conviction is based, has not been exhibited or tendered in evidence recorded during statement of any witness. Learned counsel for the appellant have also referred to statements of PW-5-Mansingh, PW-6-Paramjeet and PW-8-Lakhiram and have submitted that those statements render the prosecution story false and fabricated. The whole prosecution case becomes false. During trial, the appellants were on bail. Now, they have served more than one year and three months sentence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on record carefully.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications for suspension of sentence.

7. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, evidence available on record and overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon detailed merits of the cases, this Court deems just and proper to allow the applications for suspension of sentence.

8. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused-appellants (1) Imran S/o Sh. Guldeen Alias Kale (2) Shahrukh Son Of Islam @ Mote shall remain suspended till disposal of these criminal appeals and they shall be released on bail, provided each of the appellants furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance in this Court on 16th December, 2021 and as and when called upon to do so.