[2023:RJ-JP:14835]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 886/2023

In

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1405/2023

Bhanupratap Singh Shekhawat @ Arjun Singh S/o Sh. Mangej

Singh, R/o Khumas Jagir, Police Station Nechwa District Sikar (At

Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 880/2023

In

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1397/2023

Vikram Singh Shekhawat S/o Chhagan Singh Shekhawat,

Resident Of Rasoolpur Badaun Ps Chirawa, Jhunjhunu Presently

Tenant At P.no. 325, Pawanpuri Benar Road, Jaipur Ps Kardhani

Jaipur West (Accused Appellant Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Kamlendra Sihag

Ms. Sonia Gill with

Mr. Swanee Kanwar

Mr. Ashish Kumar Gill

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

20/07/2023

[2023:RJ-JP:14835]

(2 of 5)

[SOSA-886/2023]

The instant applications for suspension of sentence are

preferred in pending appeal, which were admitted on 02.06.2023

and filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated

19.05.2023 in Sessions Case No. 340/2015 passed by learned

Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jaipur Metro-

II whereby appellants were convicted for offence under Sections

376D and 450 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

Learned counsel for appellants while referring the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ganga Prasad Mahto Vs.

State of Bihar and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 526/2019)

and Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar

(Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2020) submitted that the

prosecutrix is habitual in making false allegations against innocent

persons. He further submitted that the story narrated in FIR,

stated in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and further in

testimony before learned trial court, clearly indicated that at all

point of time, she made improvements in her version and her

deposition is full of contradictions. He further submitted that

prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 before the court and her

statement clearly indicated that she is making false allegations

against present appellants. He further submitted that the site plan

(Ex.P-3) prepared at the instance of prosecutrix clearly indicated

that after the incident of rape, she not only stayed calmly during

the night in her room but after taking bath and spending full day,

she lodged this report in the evening. He further referred

contradictions in the deposition of this PW-1 and submitted that

these material contradictions make the testimony of PW-10

untrustworthy. While referring certain documents relating to

[2023:RJ-JP:14835]

(3 of 5)

[SOSA-886/2023]

defence, he submitted that as many as 11 cases were registered

against different persons by this PW-1. He submitted that the

deposition of PW-9 (Deepak Kumar) clearly indicated that prior to

present case, two other cases registered by present prosecutrix

were investigated by him. He further submitted that PW-9

admitted that no investigation was conducted to ascertain reasons

of delay in filing FIR and also tracing the location of appellants at

the time of incident. He further compared the statement of PW-1

and PW-9 to contradict that PW-1 made a phone call to PW-9

which was denied by PW-9. He further submitted that there was

no sign of injury on persona of victim. He further submitted that

the deposition of prosecutrix is unbelievable as it is full of

contradictions, wherefore she cannot be treated as sterling

witness, therefore learned trial court had committed a grave error

in convicting present appellants. At last, it is submitted that the

appellants were on bail during the trial and disposal of app