Allowed

Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/O Shri Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2024SOSA/203/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 366 IPC sought suspension of sentence; the trial court had found the victim above 18 years and POCSO offence unproved. Considering her admitted consensual roaming with him and his custody exceeding four-and-a-half years, sentence was suspended and bail granted.

What did the court decide?

Sentences suspended till final disposal of the appeal; appellant released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/O Shri Ramsingh Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:3595]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 203/2023 IN

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.152/2023

¶5

Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/o Shri Ramsingh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Near Bajigar Basti Village Karmgarh, Police Station Tuliwal District Barnala State Punjab (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar)

¶6

----Accused-Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Shyam Bihari Gautam
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Imran Khan, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

22/01/2024

¶14

This Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application is preferred against the judgment dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Special Court, Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.2 Sikar in Sessions Case No.87/2019, whereby, the accused-appellant Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. along with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo additional 1 year's S.I. and for the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years' R.I. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo additional six months' S.I. The offence under Section 3(K)/4 of POCSO Act was not proved.

[2024:RJ-JP:3595]

[SOSA-203/2023]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that learned trial court after considering the evidence opined that age of victim is above 18 years and the same has been mentioned in the impugned judgment at page No.12. He further submits that accused-appellant and prosecutrix were having love affair and prosecutrix at her own will roamed with the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant did not use any force and whatever happened between the accused-appellant and prosecutrix, it was with the consent of the prosecutrix.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that prosecutrix PW-1 in her cross-examination at page No.2 has admitted that she was regularly chatting with the accusedappellant through voice call as well as video calls. She has also admitted that they went together with the accused-appellant from Khatushyam Ji to Ringas in an auto and she did not make any alarm in the auto that accused-appellant is carrying her forcibly in the auto. In the cross-examination she has also stated that from Ringas they went to Punjab and there also they roamed for six days at various places, therefore, the learned trial court has erred in recording the finding that accused-appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable. Further PW-13 Investigation OfÏcer Surendra Kumar Saini has admitted that he did not collect any chat details transmitted between prosecutrix and accused-appellant. He also submits that accused-appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. The accused-appellant is in custody since 13.07.2019, so also the decision of the appeal may take considerable, therefore, sentence

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:3595]

[SOSA-203/2023]

awarded to the accused-appellant may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the suspension of sentence application.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the material available on record.

¶26

The learned trial court has categorically held that prosecutrix was above 18 years. After recording the finding on the age of the victim, the learned trial court did not find commission of offence under Section 3(K)/4 of POCSO Act.

¶27

After considering the fact that prosecutrix has admitted that she was having regular chats with the accused-appellant and did not make any alarm while roaming with the accused-appellant at various places. The accused-appellant has remained in custody for more than four and half years, so also considering that hearing of the appeal may take considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused-appellant during pendency of the instant appeal.

¶28

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 Special Court, Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.2 Sikar vide judgment dated 20.12.2022 in in Sessions Case No.87/2019 against the appellant-applicant Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/o Shri Ramsingh , shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum

[2024:RJ-JP:3595]

[SOSA-203/2023]

(4 of 4)

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 26.02.2024 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶33

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

¶34

That if the applicant(s) change(s) 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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 accused-applicant(s) was/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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶37

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶38

45-SURAJ KUMAR

Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/O Shri Ramsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvindra Singh @ Jassi S/O Shri Ramsingh 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

Ramkesh @ Ramnaresh Son of Ganpat Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Keshu Bhai S/O Shri Dhanji Bhai Patel B/C Patel Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Brijmohan Gupta Son of Late Chhiddiram Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Son of Shri Harisingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Yogi S/O Shri Maluram Yogi B/C Yogi Vs Muskan Yogi W/O Rakesh Kumar Yogi D/O Shri Ramavtar Yogi

Muskan Yogi Yogi W/O Sh. Rakesh Kumar Yogi D/O Shri Ramavtar Yogi Vs Rakesh Kumar Yogi S/O Sh. Maloo Ram Yogi B/C Yogi