[2026:RJ-JP:11859-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Suspension Of Sentence Application No.

1736/2025 In D.B. Criminal Appeal No.197/2022 Shriram S/o Shri Parsaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Hatupura, Police Station Naraina, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Currently Appellant Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Hora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

19/03/2026

1. This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused-applicant along with the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2-I) IPC and Section 5 (L)/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter and he has served the sentence for more than seven years. He further submits that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the accused-applicant for the offence under Sections 376 (2-I)

& 376 (2-N) of IPC. He further submits that the hearing of appeal may take long time and prayed that sentence awarded to the accused-applicant may be suspended and he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submits that the first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the accused- applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide its order dated 16.10.2023, which reads as under:-

“1.Accused-applicant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence.

2.Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

3.It is contended by counsel appearing for the accused-applicant that applicant has remained in custody for a period of more than four years and it has not been established that prosecutrix was a minor. It is also contended that prosecutrix stayed with applicant for a period of three months and when she was recovered, she did not level allegations against the applicant.

4.Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is contended that as per the record, prosecutrix was aged 14 years & 2 months at the time of the alleged incident and in the Court statement, she has levelled allegations with regard to rape. It is also contended that F.S.L. report and DNA report also point towards the guilt of the accused.

5.We have considered the contentions.6.Considering the statement of victim (PW-1) as well as her age; also considering the F.S.L. report and DNA report, we are not inclined to entertain the application for suspension of sentence.

7.Accordingly, the present application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.”

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Considering the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the accused-applicant and also considering the fact that since the first suspension of sentence application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide its order dated 16.10.2023 and thereafter except period of custody, there is no change in circumstances, in our considered view, no case is made out to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

7. Hence, the present application for suspension of sentence stands dismissed.

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /9