Allowed

Radheyshyam Saini Son of Shri Sitaram Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2023SOSA/698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application, the High Court at Jaipur considered an appeal against conviction under POCSO and IPC. Addressing disputes over the victim's age and evidence, the court allowed the suspension of the appellant's sentence pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of the appellant is suspended till disposal of appeal on execution of personal bond with conditions.

Radheyshyam Saini Son of Shri Sitaram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 698/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 991/2023

¶5

Radheyshyam Saini Son Of Shri Sitaram Saini, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Dhani Mehlana Amarsar, Police Station Amarsar, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

17/07/2023

¶14

The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 05.05.2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2023 in Sessions Case No. 39/2021 passed by learned learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Jaipur whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 342 of IPC and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon the grounds of appeal submitted that the date of birth of prosecutrix was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He referred the statement of PW-7 to submit that to record the date of birth as

¶16

[SOSA-698/2023]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

10.04.2006, no document was procured at the time of admission of prosecutrix in the school which was a private school. He further submitted that in the defence, appellant had got exhibited Ex.D3 and D4 wherein date of birth of prosecutrix registered as 10.10.2001 or age as 19 years which means that prosecutrix was major on date of incident. He further submitted that this case was registered on complaint Ex.P-9 by father of prosecutrix and after recovery of prosecutrix on 14.12.2020 when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she admitted having an affair with present appellant. He further submitted that prosecutrix was a willing party to the entire incident and she admitted that everything was done with her consent. He further referred the statement of certain witnesses to submit that the discrepancies as indicated therein were not considered by learned trial court. He submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted by learned trial court. He further submitted that FSL report was not exhibited by medical expert or by police officer and opportunity of cross-examination was not afforded to appellant accused. At last, he submitted that disposal of appeal will take its own time so appellant be released on bail.

¶19

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶20

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

¶21

A perusal of record indicates that appellant remained in custody from 19.01.2021 to 14.03.2022 and thereafter from 25.04.2023 till now. Appellant was released on bail during trial in pursuant to order dated 11.03.2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

¶22

[SOSA-698/2023]

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

Application No.12023/2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for appellant raised serious doubt on date of birth of victim which was proved by PW-7 Omprakash by exhibiting Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-16. Two documents Exhibit D3 and D4 were exhibited in cross-examination of IO (PW-12-Anita Meena) wherein she admitted that as per ration card Ex.D-3 and JanAadhar Card (Ex.D-4), the age of victim is 19 years. Later she stated that as per school record, she was minor and further it was admitted by her that she did not inquired about the study of prosecutrix in Government School. It was admitted by PW-12 in her cross-examination that no fact was found regarding forcible rape with victim.

¶26

Considered the entire evidence on record and also the fact that FSL reports were exhibited as C1 and C2. At this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out by learned counsel for appellant but having considered the entirety of material, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that this is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The application for suspension of sentence is allowed and sentence of appellant- Radheyshyam Saini Son Of Shri Sitaram Saini is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would 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 his appearance in this court on 21.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶27

[SOSA-698/2023]

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

PREETI VALECHA /47

Radheyshyam Saini Son of Shri Sitaram Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheyshyam Saini Son of Shri Sitaram Saini 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

Sandeep Sain S/O Shri Banwari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyaveer Singh S/O Sh. Maal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Amarchand Mawar S/O Shri Goduram Mawar Vs State of Rajasthan

Anuradha Sharma W/O Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs Murlidhar Sharma S/O Shri Goru Lal B/C Brahmin

Ashok Kumar Pabuwal S/O Shri J.K. Pabuwal Vs Mohammed Abdul Hai S/O Late Kayuum Bhai Proprietor Kayuum Motors

Shyam Sundar Verma Son of Late Surajmal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.