ORDER :

1. Instant second application for suspension of sentence is preferred aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2022 in Sessions Case No.57/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, Cases) No.1, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for charge under Sections 363, 366, 376AB IPC and Section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father of victim has not supported the case of prosecution, rather he turned hostile. He further referred the statement of PW-1 victim and submitted that her statement is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that present petitioner has committed any sexual offense with her. He further referred the questions and submitted that the trial court has suggested certain questions which were answered in affirmative by victim and on the basis of the affirmation present petitioner was convicted. He also submitted that present petitioner is in custody for almost seven years and there is no likelihood that the appeal will be taken up for hearing.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. He also informed that complainant victim has already been informed.

5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. First SOS application of present petitioner was considered by this court on 20.07.2023 and while dismissing the first SOS application, we have observed as under:

"As per custody certificate submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, appellant has already remained in custody for more than 3 years and 6 months and even during trial he remained in custody.

PW3 informant-complainant who is father of victim has turned hostile.

Similarly, the person named as “first to know” the incident as named in Ex.P4 was examined as PW2 and he also turned hostile. In report Ex.P4, the name of victim, name of present appellant and also the fact that sexual assault was committed with victim were also mentioned. When we look at statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P1 then the victim was examined on 03.03.2020 wherein she specifically referred certain act and this victim was examined as PW1 before the trial court. Therein, initially she admitted that she was kissed by appellant. Thereafter, she admitted that her cloths were removed firstly she stated that appellant had inserted his finger in her mouth then she admitted insertion of private part of accused in her mouth. The sequence of answer given by PW1 clearly indicated that victim was 12 years of age and examined by a system in question answer format. Moreover, when asked description about the incident then at one point of time she just kept mum and did not answered the question.

In this case, one of the act which is quite noticeable is that admission of PW2 to enter into compromise with appellant and also the father of victim turned hostile but victim remained firm and even she could not speak about the entire incident.

Having considered the entirety of evidence, I am of considered view that in case like this, we all are concerned about sexual abuse of children by perpetrators and this is a fit case to opine that just to stop abuse of children from sexual exploitation etc. the POCSO was enacted by the Parliament of India."

7. No doubt about the fact that father of victim has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, rather his admission indicate that a compromis