Back
FARJAND ALI
Munesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the judgment impugned dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2005, No.2, Kota whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to maximum 20 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine, further undergo RI for six months.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that vehemently submits that a patently false case has been foisted against the appellant with an oblique motive to harass him and this fact can be traced from the record of the case. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which further casts a serious doubt in the genuineness of the story set out by the prosecution and the possibility of embellishment and concoction cannot be ruled out. The incident allegedly took place on 29.03.2020 and that too just near to her house where she was subjected to rape. The manner in which the incident allegedly took place and reported in Ex.P-1 reveals that ample
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.
A prima facie evaluation necessitates bail when conflicting evidence undermines the prosecution’s case.
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....
Discrepancies in evidence and delay in FIR raised doubts about the conviction, prompting bail suspension.
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.
The conviction under POCSO was overturned due to delays in FIR lodging and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
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.
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
