Allowed

Amit Kumar Agarwal S/O Satyanarayan @ Satish Kumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2021SOSA/1153/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail and suspended the sentence of the appellant, already serving a seven-year term for rape, pending the disposal of his criminal appeal. The Court dismissed the merits of the underlying conviction but considered the length of the appeal hearing and the appellant's bail status.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence allowed; release on bail granted pending disposal of appeal upon furnishing bond and sureties.

Amit Kumar Agarwal S/O Satyanarayan @… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. SOS (Bail) Application No.1153/2021

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1868/2021

¶5

Amit Kumar Agarwal S/o Satyanarayan @ Satish Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 62 Street No 1, Near Gautam Hospital, Savera Estate, Rajendra Park, Gurgaon (Haryana). (Accused Confined In Central Jail, Alwar)

¶6

----Accused/Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Gurvindra Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

09/12/2021

¶14

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶15

The appellant has filed the appeal along with application for suspension of sentence.

¶16

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.3, Alwar in Sessions Case No.03/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to maximum term of seven years.

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant

¶19

that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He has been sentenced to maximum term of seven years of imprisonment for offence under Section 376 of IPC. Learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The prosecutrix and the appellant got engaged and they both had consensual relationship but thereafter, due to some unfortunate circumstances, this false case has been levelled against the appellant. Learned trial court has wrongly inferred from the statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix. In this regard, learned counsel has also referred to para 35, 42, 45 and 50 of the impugned judgment and has argued that the conclusion drawn from the statement of appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not legally sustainable. It is further argued that statements of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made a basis for conviction of the appellant. A bare perusal of the statement of prosecutrix(P.W.1) reveals that relation between the prosecutrix and the appellant were consensual. No force or fraud was committed by the appellant. The consent of the prosecutrix was free and voluntary. Learned trial court has wrongly derived the conclusion that the prosecutrix was under mental pressure to save her engagement with the appellant. One person namelyAmitendra Das threatened the appellant and stated himself to be husband of the prosecutrix. The appellant was threatened by that person with dire consequences if the appellant got married to the prosecutrix. As per settled law to constitute offence under Section 375 of IPC, the promise of marriage must have been a false

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

promise given in bad faith with no intention of being adhere to, at the time it was given. In this case, no such bad intention of the appellant has been brought on record which can establish that the appellant had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix from the inception of engagement.

¶22

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon following judgments :-

¶23

Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr.

¶24

2021 SCCOnline SC 181

¶25

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶26

AIR 2019 SC 327

¶27

Babu Singh & ors. v. The State of U.P. 1978 CRI.L.J. 651(1)

¶28

It is further submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial. His second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was allowed by this court on 21.01.2016 after considering the statement of prosecutrix recorded during the trial. He has already served one year and one month of sentence. Hearing of appeal may take long time.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and has submitted that the appellant forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. False promise of marriage was made with the prosecutrix by the appellant to satisfy his lust. He had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix from the inception of engagement The consent of the prosecutrix can not be held to be voluntary and free. The consent was under duress or mental

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

pressure of the society to save the engagement with the appellant.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent/s has also placed reliance in the case of Vipin Kumar @ Vikki v. State of U.P. & anr ., Manu/UP/1182/2021(In the High Court of Allahabad, U.P.)

¶33

Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. As per the version of appellant, he was threatened by some other person with dire consequences if the appellant got married with the prosecutrix but even thereafter, he had forceful sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. The appellant, from the very beginning, acted with mala fides, therefore, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be dismissed.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence available on record carefully.

¶35

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, overall facts and circumstances of the case particularly the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses, but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems just and proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence.

¶36

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accusedappellant Amit Kumar Agarwal S/o Satyanarayan @ Satish Kumar Agarwal shall remain suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and he be released on bail, provided the appellant furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of

¶37

(5 of 5)

¶38

Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance in this Court on 10^th January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶39

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶40

Hemant/53

Amit Kumar Agarwal S/O Satyanarayan @ Satish Kumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Agarwal S/O Satyanarayan @ Satish Kumar Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Madan Lal Vs Dinesh Kumar S/O Late Ramakishan

Saurabh Bhargava C/O Nath Optician and Sight Care Vs Sanjay Palecha S/O Shri Hirachand

Tejpal @ Teju S/O Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Sujata Aswal D/O Kanhaiya Lal Aswal Vs Kailash Sankhla S/O Ashok Sankhla B/C Khatik

Bhuddhi Prakash @ Dholya S/O Devlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Silochana Vs State of Rajasthan