[2025:RJ-JP:50075]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Suspension Of Sentence Application

(Appeal) No. 2448/2024

IN

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.54/2024

Kalim @ Alim S/o Shoraj, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Ali- garh (Gundbas) P.s. Hasarpur, District Palwal Haryana (Presently

Lodged In Central Jail Alwar Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with

Mr. Aamir

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with

Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

09/12/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned State counsel on the second application for suspension of

execution of sentence.

2. The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A & 376D of IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 vide judgment dated 08.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, No.3, Alwar (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.37/2021 (CIS No.177/2021) and has

been sentenced to maximum punishment of twenty years.

3. Vide order dated 11.09.2024, first application filed by the applicant-appellant for suspension of execution of sentence was

dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Now, this second application for suspension of execution of sentence has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that applicant-appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned trial Court. Counsel submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in correct perspective. Counsel argues that there is a complete absence of any evidence on record which could be made to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further highlighted that the applicant was a stranger to the victim and yet the Investigating Agency did not conduct the test identification parade to verify the identification made by the victim. The trial Court also failed to take necessary precautions during the proceedings, as other persons were not allowed to stand in the dock while the victim testified against the applicant, calling into question the veracity of the identification. Counsel also refers to the fact that the victim was unable to identify the place where the alleged rape took place which raises questions of the reliability and credibility of the prosecution's case. Counsel draws attention of this court towards the testimony of PW27, Gulfam, who stated that the victim had approached him expressing her desire to marry on account of unhappiness with the parents. This statement suggests alternative motives and circumstances that may undermine the prosecution's narrative. It is contended that the trial Court grossly erred in convicting the applicant-appellant under section 376D of IPC as the offence alleged to have been committed was a single act and no other accused was involved in it. It is submitted that similar situated co- accused person namely Najim has been acquitted by the learned trial court against whom allegations were levelled by the same victim. However, said accused was tried separately. Counsel submits that the prosecution case also gets weakened because there is no corroborative evidence to support the allegations made by the victim. It is also submitted that the victim was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse shortly after the delivery (abortion) of the child. During the course of the medical examination, the doctor found a foul-smelling vaginal discharge, which again raises serious questions about the credibility of the rape allegations under such circumstances. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant-appellant has already undergone approximately 53 months of incarceration, including the benefit of remission. Despite filing an application for early hearing of the appeal, same has been declin