Dismissed

Rajesh Mahawar S/O Kaluram B/C Koli v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Jul 2023SOSA/1876/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a suspension of sentence application filed by a convicted appellant under Sections 377 IPC and POCSO. The petitioner claimed the FIR was fabricated and sought bail, noting he had spent over four years in custody while on bail during trial. The court rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The application for suspension of sentence was dismissed and the misc. application stands disposed of.

Rajesh Mahawar S/O Kaluram B/C Koli Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:15109]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1876/2019

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2651/2019

¶6

Rajesh Mahawar S/o Kaluram, R/o Indragandhi Nagar D.c.m. P.s. Udhyog Nagar Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan with Ms. Simran Bharti For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.G. Chopra, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

24/07/2023

¶15

The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 22.03.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2019 in Sessions Case No.53/2018 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.5, Kota whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363 & 377 IPC and Section 5(l)(m)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced accordingly.

¶16

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that a false and fabricated report was registered by complainant (PW-7) and in her deposition he did not corroborated the story. He further submitted that cross-examination of PW-7 and PW-8 clearly indicated that due to animosity and previous dispute, present case was

[2023:RJ-JP:15109]

[SOSA-1876/2019]

(2 of 3)

registered by them against present appellants. He further submitted that nothing was found in medical or FSL and nobody had corroborated alleged incident. He further submitted that appellant is in custody for last 4 years 10 months. At last, he submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time.

¶21

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶23

A perusal of record indicated that appellant was released on bail in pursuance of order dated 06.10.2016 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12697/2016 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. A perusal of custody certificate also indicated that appellant is in custody and had already undergone sentence of 4 years and 10 months.

¶24

We have considered the report registered by PW-7 and also the statement of PW-7, particularly the cross-examination as referred by learned counsel for appellant and also considered the cross-examination of PW-8 who is wife of PW-7. These two witnesses are parents of victim (PW-6). After registration of FIR, victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and same was exhibited as Ex,P-9. On report Ex.P-8, the in-charge himself enquired from victim and further recorded the statement of victim.

¶25

Having considered all these aspects in the matter, the fact is quite clear that victim had deposed against appellant and crossexamination of PW-6 clearly indicated that nothing is available to discredit the deposition of Pw-6.

¶26

(3 of 3) [SOSA-1876/2019]

¶27

[2023:RJ-JP:15109]

¶28

The victim was medically examined by PW-4 (Dr. Arun Sharma) and report Ex.P-3 was prepared by him. We have considered the same and it is quite clear that a possibility was explained on the basis of redness on parienal region though FSL (Ex.P-19) was negative.

¶29

Having considered the entirety of matter, the age of victim is again a considerable factor in the matter and he is less than 12 years of age. The victim has corroborated the incident from beginning till deposition in one voice, therefore on the basis of deposition of PW-7 and PW-8, it cannot be considered a case wherein appellant can be released on bail.

¶30

Hence looking to the gravity and heinousness of offence, I am of considered view that only on the basis that appellant was on bail during trial and had already spent less than 5 years in custody is not a ground to release the appellant on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶32

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

PREETI VALECHA/44

Rajesh Mahawar S/O Kaluram B/C Koli v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Mahawar S/O Kaluram B/C Koli 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

Gopal Gurjar S/O Kesar Lal Gurjar Vs Ram Sahai S/O Arjana Ram Gurjar

Girraj Son of Gopal Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlal S/O Harikishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandra Prakash S/O Daluram Lashkari Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Babu Lal S/O Kallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Nand Lal Sharma Son of Shri Vishambhar Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan