Back
INDERJEET SINGH, ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Rajpal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for suspension of sentence (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments from both sides regarding the evidentiary credibility (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. opposition and procedural considerations (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. decision to suspend sentence (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. compliance directive to trial court (Para 10) |
ORDER :
This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 366 , 376D & 342 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 5 /6 of the Protection of Children From the Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has annexed the certificate under Rule 311 (3) of the RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES to the effect that the applicant is confined in Central Jail, Bikaner. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and he has already served the sentence for a period of more than seven years. He further submits the sentence of similarly situated co-accused persons namely Babita @ Babli and Vikram Singh has already been suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Cour
The court suspended the sentence of the accused-applicant due to doubts regarding the prosecution's evidence and the significant time already served.
The prosecution must prove the victim's age in cases involving sexual offences; failure to do so can lead to suspension of sentence.
The court determined that the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the victim's age justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence.
The court may suspend a sentence if doubts arise regarding the conviction, particularly concerning the proof of the victim's age and the validity of consent.
The court suspended the sentence based on the victim's age and circumstances, allowing the appellant to appeal the conviction.
The court ruled that insufficient proof of the victim's age justified the suspension of the applicant's sentence under IPC and POCSO Act.
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
