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.

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 force was put upon her and soon after the incident she had gone to her house where she slept with her family members. On the next day she left her house along with her cousin and went to village Seewali but did not disclose the story to anyone. She had narrated the entire story to her grandmother on the next date and thereafter on 04.04.2020 to her parents, but surprisingly the matter came to be lodged on 09.04.2020. It is fervently contended that large part of the story narrated in the FIR Ex.P-1 and her statement recorded during investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.P-7 has not been found reliable by the agency and that is why the accused Manbhar Bai and Yuvraj have been exonerated by the investigating agency itself and the charge-sheet came to be submitted only against the accused appellant. He has strong arguable case in his favour and hearing of appeal will take time and the appellant is behind the bars since 13.04.2020. There are major contradiction in the statements.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant.

4. The accused-appellant is behind the bars and the hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time, therefore, considering the overall submissions and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

5. 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, 2005, No.2, Kota, vide judgment dated 20.10.2022 in Sessions Case No.139/2020 against the appellant-applicant Munesh Son Of Shri Shambhu Dayal 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.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 17.03.2023 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 applicant(s) 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 in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

6. The learned trial Court shall keep th