IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

2 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1503 of 2024 ==========================================================

VISHAL S/OF DEVDAS BHAI RAMDAS BAVA (BAMANIYA)

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DINESHKUMAR J PRAJAPATI(9979) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 NOTICE UNSERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 15/12/2025

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. We have heard Mr.Dineshkumar Prajapati, learned advocate, Mr.P.V. Patadiya, learned advocate and Mr.Ronak Raval, learned APP for the respective parties.

3. By way of this application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicant – Vishal S/o. Devdasbhai Ramdas Bava (Bamaniya), seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(2), 6, of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

4. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 12.02.2024 and order of sentence passed in Special POCSO Case No.124 of 2022, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under: Section Imprisonment Fine In default S.4(2) of POCSO R.I. for 20 years Rs.50,00 Imprisonment for 2

0/- years S.6 of POCSO R.I. for 20 years Rs.50,00 Imprisonment for 2

0/- years S.376(2)(n) of No separate sentence being awarded.

IPC

5. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that the victim and the accused being a labourer working in the same factory, got acquainted and fell into love. They stayed together almost one month and more at different places referred in the case papers. On the basis of complaint regarding kidnapping and sexual abuse, the accused was put on trial and at the conclusion of it, he found guilty for the offences, as referred above.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Dineshkumar Prajapati, appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable in eye of law, as the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the victim was under 18 years. That the accused being illiterate fell into love with the victim and they remained together for about one month and more and therefore, having regard to the nature of relations, and sociail backgrounds of the parties, the prayer may be considered.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and Mr.P.V. Patadiya, learned advocate for the private respondent have supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that the victim was minor and as such, there is no scope to review the issue of age at this stage and therefore, no case is made out and the prayer may not be entertained.

8. Issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence?

9. We have carefully examined the case records and considered the submissions made at the bar. In this case, the victim and the accused being a labourer working the same factory, came into contact and developed intimate relationship and stayed together for about one month and more as husband and wife. The incarceration period is two years and till date, there is no scope for early hearing of this appeal. In such circumstances, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant convict for the purpose of suspension of sentence and grant of bai