Allowed

Smt. Roshni Devi Wife of Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2023SOSA/980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed suspension of sentence application for an appeal pending a POCSO conviction appeal, granting bail with conditions for appearance despite the gravity of the offence and animosity between parties.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended till disposal of appeal; appellant to execute personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and appear in the trial Court.

Smt. Roshni Devi Wife of Man Singh Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 980/2022

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1529/2022

¶5

Smt. Roshni Devi Wife Of Man Singh, Resident Of Kothali Police Station Malaran Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Saini, PP Mr. G.P. Sharma Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

21/07/2023

¶14

The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal, which was admitted on 21.04.2023 and filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2022 in Sessions Case No. 30/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366A IPC and 16/17 of POCSO Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon the grounds of appeal submitted that for the alleged incident of 14.05.2020

¶16

[SOSA-980/2022]

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

(Ex.P-1) report was lodged on 12.06.2020 and FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered wherein no explanation of delay was offered by complainant. While referring the first statement of prosecutrix (Ex.D-1) recorded by police, he submitted that after 3-4 days prosecutrix had revealed the incident to family members but even then report was not filed to the police. He further submitted that PW-1 is mother of prosecutrix and during cross-examination, it was admitted that her brother-in-law and nephew were having a dispute with father of Man Singh for right of way on land of father of Man Singh. He further referred the admission of PW-1 to submit that this witness had seen stains on clothes of prosecutrix but even upon knowing everything no report was lodged in time. He further referred the statement of PW-2 in particular crossexamination to submit that there was lavatory in her home but even then she walked out from home for the purpose. He further submitted that the incident took place during lockdown when entire market was closed and there was no movement on roads therefore evidence to procure Imarti (sweet) from market is totally false. He further submitted that the testimony of PW-2 indicated that she is highly unreliable and unbelievable. He further referred the statement of complainant PW-3 wherein Ratan was named as the person who saw victim with present appellant but Ratan was not named as witness by prosecution. He further referred the statement of PW-6 and PW-8 to submit that the age of victim was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and discrepancies clearly indicated that victim was not minor on the date of incident. He further referred the cross-examination of PW16 (IO) to submit that there was animosity between accused party

¶19

[SOSA-980/2022]

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

and complainant party. He further referred the statement of PW16 to submit that no photo or video was recovered from mobile of accused. While referring the statement of PW-18 (Dr. Anju Meena) he submitted that no injury was found on body of victim. He submitted that appellant is a woman having two children and was on bail during trial. He further submitted that there were material discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses examined by prosecution and the testimony of prosecutrix is highly unreliable. At last, he submitted that disposal of appeal will take its own time, so appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that on the basis of evidence recorded in para Nos. 104 to 107 of judgment, had concluded that present appellant was actively involved in facilitating rape with victim by her husband.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Perused the record.

¶24

A perusal of record indicated that for incident of 14.05.2020, report was registered on 12.06.2020 and victim was medically examined by PW-18 on 12.06.2020. According to complainant (PW-3), victim had narrated this incident 4-5 days after the incident but the wife of PW-3 intimated about the incident to him on 11.06.2020, thereafter PW-3 visited the house of accused to scold them.

¶25

We have specifically perused the cross-examination of PW-1 mother of victim, PW-3 complainant and PW-2 victim. The

¶26

[SOSA-980/2022]

¶27

(4 of 5)

¶28

discrepancies and contradictions as referred by learned counsel for appellant can be considered only when appeal is considered on merits and no concrete opinion can be expressed at this stage. A perusal of record indicated that appellant Roshani was released on bail by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Sawaimadhopur on 31.12.2020 wherein it was noticed that appellant is mother of two children. Aggrieved from aforesaid, present complainant PW-3 had filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 17/2021 which was dismissed on 15.07.2021. The allegation on present appellant is for abetment of offence and actively assisting accused, husband of present appellant in committing rape with victim.

¶29

Having considered the statement of PW-6 and PW-8 wherein date of birth of victim is stated to be 07.01.2004 and victim was above 16 years of age but less than 18 years. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The applications for suspension is allowed and sentence of appellant Smt. Roshni Devi Wife Of Man Singh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that she 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 her appearance in this court on 22.12.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶30

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

¶31

(5 of 5) [SOSA-980/2022]

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

Misc. Application stands disposed of.

¶35

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶36

PREETI VALECHA /43-44

Smt. Roshni Devi Wife of Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Roshni Devi Wife of Man Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv S/O Ganga Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind @ Achal Vijay S/O Shri Poonamchand Vijay Mhajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Manglani S/O Teuram Manglani Vs Gourishankar Sain S/O Jethmal Sain

Ramlal S/O Harikishan Vs State of Rajasthan

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

Girraj Son of Gopal Lal Vs State of Rajasthan