Allowed

Monu @ Akhilesh Son of Shri Jogendra @ Jugendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Dec 2021SOSA/1208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed suspension of sentence application. Appellant convicted of POCSO and IPC offenses, primarily alleging false implicatement and consensual relationship. Appellant granted bail pending appeal upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 lakh and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence allowed; appellant released on bail subject to bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Monu @ Akhilesh Son of Shri Jogendra @… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence

¶3

Application No.1208/2021

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1940/2021

¶6

Monu @ Akhilesh Son Of Shri Jogendra @ Jugendra, Resident Of Nausera, Police Station Civil Line, Badayun, District Badayun, Uttar Pradesh.

¶7

(Presently Confined At Central Jail Alwar, Rajasthan)

¶8

----Accused-Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

16/12/2021

¶16

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶17

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

¶18

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, No.1, Alwar in Sessions Case No.136/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344 of IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to maximum term of ten

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

years.

¶21

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Statement of prosecutrix has been recorded as P.W.1, which does not inspire confidence as it suffers from material contradictions and infirmities. Age of the prosecutrix was about seventeen years at the time of incident. It was a case of consensual relationship, which is evident from the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses. The prosecutrix went with the appellant to different places and lived with him for about one month without raising any alarm or protest while she had opportunity to do so. She was in public places at many occasions. She has resiled from her statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. During the investigation and in her police statement, she has admitted that she went with the appellant on her own free will and they performed marriage in a temple. Her statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded after fifteen days of her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and she changed her statements due to parental pressure. Hearing of appeal may take long time. There are no other criminal antecedents of the appellant.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.

¶23

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

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

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

¶26

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accusedappellant Monu @ Akhilesh S/o Shri Jogendra @ Jugendra 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 Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance in this Court on 17^th January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶28

Hemant/50

Monu @ Akhilesh Son of Shri Jogendra @ Jugendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu @ Akhilesh Son of Shri Jogendra @ Jugendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Kumar Son of Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyender @ Pintu @ Mintu S/O Shri Dharmender Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramrai @ Rairam @ Rajaram S/O Shyogi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Arti Rupani Wife of Shri Ashok Rupani D/O Shri Kishan Chand Vs Ashok Rupani Son of Bhagwan Das Rupani

Manish Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanaram Son of Ramphool Meena Vs State of Rajasthan