Dismissed

Balram@Vikram S/O Shri Suresh @ Surya B/C Jaga v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2022SOSA/587/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for suspension of sentence under S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 748/2020, the High Court rejected the appellant's claim that the POCSO charge was false due to alleged victim consent and lack of scientific evidence. The court held that since the victim was under 14, consent was immaterial. Rejecting the plea for bail based on cancerous sentence, the court dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence dismissed; miscellaneous application disposed of.

Balram@Vikram S/O Shri Suresh @ Surya B/C… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/004741]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Application No.587/2020

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 748/2020

¶6

Balram @ Vikram S/o Shri Suresh @ Surya, R/o Sathoor Jagat Ka Barda Tahsil Hindoli Distt. Bundi (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GAcum-AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

22/03/2023

¶15

Present application for suspension of sentence was filed on behalf of the appellant-accused in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.748/2020 assailing the order of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2020 in Sessions Case No.422/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, Cases) No.1, Kota.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are lots of contradiction and infirmities in the statements of prosecution recorded before learned trial court, which clearly suggests that no case was made out against present appellant. He further submits that after the alleged incident victim was examined under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has admitted that she has voluntarily accompanied present appellant and had physical intercourse with

[2023/RJJP/004741]

[SOSA-587/2020]

(2 of 4)

her consent. He further submits that the victim was examined as PW-2, wherein also she has admitted consensual intercourse with present appellant. He further referred the admission of PW-2 wherein she admitted voluntarily accompanying present appellant. He submits that these admissions clearly suggests that no offence was committed by present appellant and he is falsely implicated. He further suggests that victim was forced by her family to depose against present appellant and no other witness has supported the prosecution story so as to prove charge against present appellant. He submits that the age of victim is also doubtful and she is more than 16 years of age. He further submits that no bodily injury was proved on the persona of victim and nothing was confirmed from reports of FSL, therefore, no scientific evidence is available on record to prove guilt of present appellant. He further submits that accused has already undergone substantial part of sentence and the disposal of appeal will take its own time, hence, unnecessary incarceration would serve no purpose.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon order dated 26.08.2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail (SOS) Application No.223/2021 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.874/2015 titled as Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, on the argument that the appellant is entitled to release as he has undergone more than 50% of the sentence awarded to him.

¶22

Aforesaid contentions were vehemently opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Considered the arguments as advanced on behalf of appellant and also State.

[2023/RJJP/004741]

[SOSA-587/2020]

(3 of 4)

Considered the material available on record and also perused the judgment as cited in support of argument.

¶28

Learned trial court has concluded that the date of birth of victim is 08.02.2004 and on date of incident, i.e. 03.09.2017, the age of victim is less than 14 years. Herein, the issue is not as that of consent. The record further indicated that the victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on dated 08.09.2017 and she has clearly described her on age as 13 years. Thereafter, when she was examined before learned trial court as PW-2 on dated 08.06.2018, she has informed her age as 15 years.

¶29

Learned trial court has concluded that victim has admitted the fact of sexual intercourse with present appellant and the fact of consensual intercourse is immaterial as the age of victim is less than 16 years. The FSL report Ex.P-21 confirms to presences of human semen from underwear of victim, though, further semen grouping remained as inconclusive as per report Ex.P-22. In present case, appellant remained in custody till disposal of sessions case by learned trial court from date of arrest dated 11.09.2017. After the judgment, appellant is undergoing sentence as awarded by learned trial court. Maximum sentence, which was awarded to present appellant is rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.20,000/-. Appellant has already undergone more than 5 years of imprisonment but looking to age of victim, which is less than 14 years, I do not deem it proper to enlarge present appellant on bail by allowing this application for suspension of sentence. In case the appellant desires to argue the case on merit, the matter can be listed at earliest.

[2023/RJJP/004741]

[SOSA-587/2020]

(4 of 4)

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is

¶34

dismissed. Misc. application is disposed of.

¶35

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶36

Arun/17

Balram@Vikram S/O Shri Suresh @ Surya B/C Jaga v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram@Vikram S/O Shri Suresh @ Surya B/C Jaga 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

Saloni Sagar Singh W/O Dharamveer Singh D/O Shashi Sagar Singh Vs Dharamveer Singh S/O Madan Singh

Vedprakash Sanwariya Son of Shri Ram Prasad Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyamsunder Son of Shri Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Gupta S/O Satish Chandra B/C Vaishya Vs State of Rajasthan

Juvenile X Son of Shri Pappu Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevan Erwal S/O Nandram Erwal Vs State of Rajasthan