Dismissed

Rajaram @ Raju S/O Basanta Ram Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024SOSA/122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second suspension of sentence application by an appellant convicted under the POCSO Act. The court held that the material on record sufficiently established the appellant's involvement and that mere discrepancies and length of custody did not make it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The instant second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed; miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

Rajaram @ Raju S/O Basanta Ram Gurjar Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:14766]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 122/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1590/2022

¶6

Rajaram @ Raju S/o Basanta Ram Gurjar, R/o Meda, Police Station Harsora, District Alwar (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Yunus Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
	Mr. R.R. Goyal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

12/03/2024

¶15

Instant second application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellant aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 01.06.2022 in Sessions Case No. 74/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.4, Alwar whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 363 IPC and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶16

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is in custody for last more than three years and there is no chance of disposal of appeal. He further referred the discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses and submitted that

[2024:RJ-JP:14766]

[SOSA-122/2024]

(2 of 3)

no independent witness was produced by the prosecution to establish that the victim was ever lured or enticed to other places. He further submitted that the trial court has ignored the material available on record and only on the basis of surmises and conjectured has convicted the appellant. He also submitted that the evidence on record is not enough to convict the appellant, therefore he be released on bail.

¶21

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. A perusal of record indicated that father of victim registered a criminal case against the appellant petitioner and on recovery, the victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she named appellant in her statement. The prosecution has also examined other witnesses. The contradictions and discrepancies as referred by learned counsel for appellant can only be considered only at the time of consideration of matter on merits but herein the appellant was found involved in the incident on the basis of material available on record. The victim has supported the case of prosecution and she has narrated the incident before the trial court. The claim of consent made by present appellant was discarded by the trial court on the ground that the age of victim was less than 16 years on the date of incident. The trial court has convicted present petitioner not only under Section 376 (3) IPC but also under Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act and appellant was sentenced to undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

[2024:RJ-JP:14766]

[SOSA-122/2024]

(3 of 3)

As per record, appellant is in custody since 27.08.2021, thus he has undergone more than 2 years 7 months, but same is not sufficient to consider that substantive part of sentence was already undergone by him.

¶26

Considering the entirety of the matter, this is not a fit case to release appellant on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, instant second application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

¶28

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶30

PREETI VALECHA /12

Rajaram @ Raju S/O Basanta Ram Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram @ Raju S/O Basanta Ram Gurjar 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

Shanti Lal Son of Shri Bhura Ram, Vs Ram Lal Son of Shri Bhura Ram

Hajari Lal S/O Daulatram Vs Union of India

Kailash Chand Gurawa S/O Late Shri Balu Ji Vs Smt. Tara Devi W/O Late Shri Munna Lal Ji (Deceased)

Devi Singh Son of Shri Chatar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mamta W/O Shri Chhitarmal Vs Shri Khemchand Prajapati S/O Late Sh. Mangal Singh

Subhash Jain Vs Lalita Devi