Table of Content
1. application for suspension of sentence due to dna evidence. (Para 1)
2. application details and initial conviction. (Para 2)
3. arguments presented by the applicant against the conviction. (Para 3 , 4)
4. court's observations regarding evidence and arguments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
5. importance of dna evidence and reasoning for suspension. (Para 8)
6. conclusion and order regarding the applicant. (Para 9 , 10)

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. The Applicant – Org. Accused has preferred the present Application under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 seeks suspension of sentence awarded vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Special Judge (POSCO) and 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anjar at Kutch in Special POCSO Case No. 11 of 2022 convicting the Applicant for the following offences as stated hereinbelow:-

Section	Imprisonment Fine in Rs.	In default of payment of fine.
376(2) (j)(n) r/w 4 and 6 of POCSO Act	RI for life 25,000/-	SI for one month

The Trial Court has further granted compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the Victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for Ld. Advocate Mr. Dhruv Chaudhari for the applicant has argued that:

(1) The present applicant is innocent and has not committed any crime as alleged.

(2) The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case without prima facie evidence; almost all Panch witnesses have turned hostile.

(3) The police constable who assigned the sample to the official Rajkot does not remember the date on which the samples were collected.

(4) The mother of the complainant also admits that she does not have proof of birth of the prosecutor’s daughter.

(5) That the fact of one Vikram Koli and Udubha Jadeja often used to visit the house of the victim, however, this aspect has been totally ignored and could not be considered by both the investigating agency as well as the learned Trial Judge while convicting the accused.

(6) That there are no specific allegations with regards to the date or the place of the offence alleged to have been committed by the present applicant.

(7) That it is a matter of record that the birth of the prosecutrix has not been registered before any competent authority.

(8) That from the deposition of the doctor who examined the prosecutrix in G.K. General Hospital, and had carried out sonography on 28-04-2022, as per the medical report, the age of the fetus was 24 weeks and five days, which is more than six months, whereas, as per the allegations in the complaint, the alleged offence took place between 27.01.2022 to 12.02.2022, which would only be 2-3 months prior to filing of the FIR.

(9) That despite that discrepancy in the version of the prosecution, neither the investigating agency nor the prosecution undertook DNA test of the victim to rule out any suspicion or to come to the conclusion that the present applicant had committed any crime.

(10) That as per the prosecutrix, she deposed before the Court that the child was born from the alleged rape which belonged to the present applicant, which is disproved by the DNA test result. It is also on record that the prosecutrix denied to undergo any DNA test, however, only after the intervention of the High Court, the order came to be passed in favor of the applicant who had preferred a writ petition for DNA test. The DNA test was carried out, and it is a matter of record that the present applicant was not the biological father of the child.

(11) That the prosecutrix has not informed anyone about the alleged offence for months together. However, it is only at such time when her mother came to know that something was wrong that she disclosed the name of the present applicant for reasons best known to her.

(12) That even the investigating officer had also admitted that no proof of age has been collected in the present case. That the age of the prosecutrix is not proved beyo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document