Allowed

Vikas Son of Ram Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2021SOSA/1224/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by two appellants convicted by a Special Judge. An application for suspension of sentence was filed along with the appeal, and the Court found it just and proper to grant suspension, releasing the appellants on bail subject to providing bonds.

What did the court decide?

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

Vikas Son of Ram Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of

¶3

Sentence No.1224/2021

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1522/2020

¶6

Vikas S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Harlauda, Police Station Garhmora, District Karauli Raj.

¶7

Prakash S/o Kedar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Harlauda, Police Station Garhmora, District Karauli (Raj.) (Both appellants At Present Lodged In The District Jail, Karauli)

¶8

----Appellants-accused

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

08/12/2021

¶16

Heard on application for suspension of sentence.

¶17

Appellants have filed the appeal along with application for suspension of sentence.

¶18

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 08.09.2020 passed by the court of Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Karauli in Sessions Case No.99/2018 (34/2013), (17/2014), (109/2010)

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

(CIS No.99/2018), by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 342, 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1956 and sentenced per order dated 10.09.2020 to maximum term of ten years.

¶21

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. FIR was registered under Sections 354, 384 of IPC, Section 66D of the I.T. Act and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. In the police statements of complainant-Jagmohan and prosecutrix, there was no allegation of rape against the appellants. FIR was lodged on 07.01.2013, while the incident has been narrated to be of JulyAugust, 2012. Subsequently, FIR was lodged after a delay of five to six months. Statements of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 23.03.2013, in which for the first time, the allegation of rape was levelled against the appellants after a delay of almost seventy days.

¶22

Learned counsel has also referred to statements of prosecution witnesses P.W.1-Jagmohan, P.W.5-prosecutrix and P.W.6-mother of the prosecutrix. All witnesses have admitted in the cross-examination that the incident of rape was in their knowledge, but despite the fact that they were knowing about this, no allegation was levelled in the FIR and statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded during the investigation. Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The prosecutrix has also resiled from some parts of her statements given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There are material

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution evidence.

¶25

Allegation of rape has been levelled due to extraneous reasons. As per certificate under Rule 311(3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the appellants were on bail during trial. Hearing of appeal may take long time.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, evidence available on record and 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.

¶29

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded to accusedappellants Vikas S/o Ram Prasad and Prakash S/o Kedar Lal, shall remain suspended till disposal of this criminal appeal and they be released on bail, provided each of them 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 their appearance in this Court on 10^th January, 2022 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶30

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶31

Hemant/20

Vikas Son of Ram Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Son of Ram Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Vs Smt Meena and Ors.

Mohammad Aqib and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Nawab Singh S/O Nathi Vs State of Rajasthan

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