[2026:RJ-JP:7804]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 35/2026 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.821/2022 Sonu Son Of Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Jheel Ki Dhani Jageer Bandikui, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) (Presently The Accused-Appellant Is Confined In District Jail, Dausa)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms.

Chanchal, Mr. Herambh Sarawwat and Mr. Utkarsh Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditaya Sharma for Mr. Anurag Kalawatiya Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

18/02/2026

1. The 2nd application for suspension of sentence is preferred by Sonu S/o Shri Banwari Lal in pending appeal aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.113/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Dausa whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 2(i), 506 IPC and 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that without observing principle of law learned trial court has arrived at a conclusion of conviction. He further submitted that learned trial court has overlooked material contradictions and discrepancies, which goes to root of the matter. He further submitted that the entire case of prosecution rests on testimony of interested witness and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the story of prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is already undergone more than 5 months and 4 months out of maximum awarded sentence of 10 years. He also referred bail order dated 26.03.2019 in bail application No.3423/2019 and submitted that the appellant was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench during trial. He also submitted that till the time, the appeal has not been considered on merits. He further submitted that the appellant is a young person having age of 24 years. He also submitted that the appellant has strong case to succeed.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant and learned Public Prosecutor.

perused the material placed on record.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

6. First SOS application was dismissed by this Court on

17.10.2023, wherein we have specifically observed as under:-

Aggrieved from impugned order, complainant has also preferred a revision petition for enhancing the sentence and fine amount. The record further indicated that appellant was released on bail in pursuant order dated 26.03.2019 in bail application No. 3423/2019 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. FIR was registered on Ex.P-5 report submitted by PW-4 (father of victim) wherein it was mentioned that his daughter was sad on 16.10.2017 but when asked she did not disclosed anything but next day when his wife asked then she cried and narrated the incident. Further she told her mother that on previous occasions, same act was committed by appellant. In Ex.P-4 it was further mentioned that the victim was terrified. Initially victim refused for medical but she had given some samples. Later on, she was fully examined on 24.10.2017. As per Ex.P-3 human semen was detected in Packet Mark “A and B” (underwear of victim) but not on any other sample. In statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-6), victim further named present appellant for committing rape with her.

Victim was examined as PW-2 before the trial court wherein also she corroborated the prosecution story in cross-examination she remained firm but admitted certain suggestions. The date of birth of victim was claimed and proved as 04.08.2004 from the record. No other suggestion is available on record to consider that this date of birth was wrong. The learned trial court re