This court dismissed the accused-appellant's application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of his appeal, finding no material made out to support the plea despite arguments regarding evidence contradiction.
Application for suspension of sentence dismissed. Paper book directed to be filed and appeal listed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
DB Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentence No.407/2018
In
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 16/2018
Karan Singh S/o Shri Chanda Lal B/c Tanwar, R/o Dalelpura Badiya Police Station Rajgarh Bayawar, Distt. Rajgarh M.p. At Present R/o Village Rajpura, Police Station Dagupura, Tehsil Manoharthana, Distt. Jhalawar Raj. At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.BR Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Alladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
06/09/2018
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that there exists contradiction in the evidence produced by the Prosecution yet ignored by learned trial Court to convict the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(i) and (n) IPC apart from Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused-appellant could not move the bail application during trial due to his poor
(2 of 2)
[SOSA-407/2018]
condition but now his sentence may be suspended during pendency of the appeal, hearing of which, may take time.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that no contradiction in the evidence exists, rather, as per the statement of prosecutrix, the accused-appellant has committed offence under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(i) and (n) IPC apart from Section 5(L)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In view of the above, the application for suspension of sentence may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that a case is not made out for suspension of sentence. Any comment on the arguments of either of the parties may affect final hearing of the appeal but taking into consideration the material available on record, we do not find a case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.
The hearing of the appeal needs to be expedited thus learned counsel for the accused-appellant is directed to file the paper book and immediately on its filing, let the appeal be listed for hearing.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J
(M.N.BHANDARI),J
Preeti/19
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a case is made out for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal alleging contradiction in prosecution evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Karan Singh
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Dinesh Chandra Somani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
