[2023:RJ-JD:20145-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal)

No. 21/2023

Vijendra Singh S/o Sh. Omprakash, Aged About 37 Years, B/c

Jat, R/o Ward No.20, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner)

----Applicant

Versus

1.

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

2.

Mahendra Ram S/o Sh. Ranaram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village

Trimohi, Police Station Gadra Road, District Barmer (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Applicant

:

Mr. Pradeep Shah

For Respondent No.1

:

Mr. Nihalsingh Rathod, Special P.P.

Ms. Disha Wadekar, Asstt. Special P.P.

Ms. Sukanya

(All through VC)

For Respondent No.2

:

Mr. Shreyansh Mardiya

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

06/07/2023

This suspension of sentence application has been preferred

on behalf of the applicant-appellant, who has been convicted and

sentenced by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases and the

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 Cases,

Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions

Case No.68/2018 (CIS No.54/2018) CNR No.RJBK150001222018

vide judgment dated 08.10.2021. The applicant-applicant has

been sentenced as under :-

[2023:RJ-JD:20145-DB]

(2 of 5)

[SOSA-21/2023]

Offences U/S

Sentence

Fine

(In Rs.)

Sentence

(in default of

payment of fine)

363 IPC

4 Years’

Rigorous

Imprisonment

5,000/-

3 Months’

Additional Rigorous

Imprisonment

366 IPC

5 Years’

Rigorous

Imprisonment

5,000/-

3 Months’

Additional Rigorous

Imprisonment

376 (2)(n) IPC

read with

3(2)(v) of

SC/ST Act, 1989

Life

Imprisonment

10,000/-

6 Months’

Additional Rigorous

Imprisonment

305 IPC

6 Years’

Rigorous

Imprisonment

10,000/-

6 Months’

Additional Rigorous

Imprisonment

3(1)(B)(i) of

SC/ST Act, 1989

2 Years’

Rigorous

Imprisonment

5,000/-

1 Month’s

Additional Rigorous

Imprisonment

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted

that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing

the accused applicant-appellant vide impugned judgment. It is

argued that there is no material available on record to

substantiate the fact that the accused applicant-appellant

committed any crime with the deceased on the ground that she

belonged to scheduled caste community and thus, the finding

recorded by the trial court against the accused applicant-appellant

for committing offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not

tenable in the eye of law.

[2023:RJ-JD:20145-DB]

(3 of 5)

[SOSA-21/2023]

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted

that testimony of prosecution witness viz. Mahendra Ram (PW-1),

who happened to be the father of the deceased, is simply based

on hearsay evidence and is not corroborated by any independent

witness against the accused applicant-appellant. It is also

submitted that the prosecution witnesses viz. Mst. Sakina Bano

(PW-2), Hadman Singh (PW-3), Omprakash (PW-4), Ms. Manju

(PW-5), Dr. Rajendra Kumar (PW-7), Manju (PW-9), Ms. Leena

Gupta (PW-12), Ms. Chandrakala (PW-13) and Mahaveer (PW-14),

who were attached with the educational institution, have not

supported the prosecution story and turned hostile as well as

nothing concrete could be elucidated in their cross-examination. It

is further submitted that the prosecution case rests on the

testimony of (PW-11) Ms. Parmeshwari, however, she has also not

completely supported the prosecution story.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted

that the applicant-appellant is under incarceration since

31.03.2016 and there is no likelihood that the appeal filed on his

behalf will be heard in near future, therefore, the sentence

awarded to him by the trial court may kindly be suspended.

Per contra, l