Allowed

Rinku @ Takla Son of Gorkha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2023SOSA/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, in a special suspension of sentence application, allowed the applicant to have his sentence suspended until the final disposal of his appeal against conviction and sentence imposed for POCSO offences. The High Court granted bail subject to strict conditions including periodic appearances and addressing changes in residence, balancing the length of the appeal with prose

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence pending appeal with bail granted on execution of personal bond with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000.

Rinku @ Takla Son of Gorkha Ram Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.

¶3

57/2023

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1064/2022

¶5

Rinku @ Takla Son Of Gorkha Ram, Resident Of Palawa Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Jail At Alwar)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. S.S. Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶12

09/01/2023

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the judgment impugned dated 12.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 cum Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.3, Alwar whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376(D) of IPC and Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to maximum twenty years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs,10,000/- (in default of payment of fine further six months additional imprisonment).

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the prosecutrix-’A’ who has made significant alteration in her statements made under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and then during trial. It is pleaded

¶15

(2 of 3) [SOSA—57/2023]

¶16

that the petitioner was a juvenile and other person was Vivek Kumar who was an adult and was charge-sheered accordingly. During his trial, the prosecutrix, PW-2 ‘A’, has been examined and deliberately made exculpatory statement towards him and therefore he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 17.07.2018 whilst the nature of accusation against the said accused Vivek and the present petitioner was same in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is pleaded that the evidence of solitary witness is not of impeccable quality and therefore basing conviction would not be in accordance with law. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and thus erred in convicting the petitioner.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant.

¶18

The accused-appellant is behind the bars and the hearing of appeal is likely to take further more time, therefore, considering the overall submissions and looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case while refraining from passing any comments on the niceties of the matter and the defects of the prosecution as the same may put an adverse effect on hearing of the appeal, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused appellant.

¶19

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 cum Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.3, Alwar, vide judgment dated 12.05.2022 in Sessions Case No. 65/2019 against the appellant-applicant Rinku @ Takla Son Of Gorkha Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[SOSA—57/2023]

¶22

the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on ..... and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶23

That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶24

That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶25

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

¶26

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedapplicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicants does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶27

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶28

PREETI VALECHA /54

Rinku @ Takla Son of Gorkha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku @ Takla Son of Gorkha Ram 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

Harkesh Son of Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Deshraj Son of Brajmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Saddam S/O Naheem Babu Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Jogi @ Chandu S/O Shri Ramprasad Jogi @ Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Indarraj S/O Dawaraka Lal Vs State of Rajasthan