Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant. It is argued that the appellant-applicant was not known to Sushila (PW-1), on whose instance the FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that Sushila (PW-1), in her court statement, has specifically stated that the appellant-applicant was not known to her and his identity was disclosed by Rameshwar (PW-4). It is further submitted that Rameshwar (PW-4), in his court statement, has stated that he did not disclose identity of the appellant-applicant to Sushila (PW-1). It is also submitted that from the statement of Dr. Vandana Dhakar (PW-9), it can be concluded that there was no evidence of sexual assault upon the victim. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Sushila (PW-1), Barji (PW-2) and Kanwar Lal (PW-3), however, the trial court has not taken into consideration the said contradictions and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant-applicant. It is further submitted that appellantapplicant is in jail since 24.10.2018 and, as such, he has undergone around 5 years of sentence till date and hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. It is, thus, prayed that sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant by the trial court be suspended.
