Dismissed

Devi Singh Son of Shri Chatar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024SOSA/290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for suspension of sentence filed by Devi Singh convicted under PoCSO and IPC sections for raping a minor pregnant victim, rejecting the argument that the long periodic custody justified bail despite evidentiary confidence in his conviction.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence application of appellant Devi Singh dismissed. Second application disposed of.

Devi Singh Son of Shri Chatar Singh Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 290/2024

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1638/2021

¶5

Devi Singh Son Of Shri Chatar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bajeda, Police Station Namli, District Ratlam (Mp) (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Central Jail, Kota )

¶6

Kantilal Son Of Son Of Shri Chatar Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Bajeda, Police Station Namli, District Ratlam (Mp) (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Central Jail, Kota )

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶13

12/03/2024

¶14

instant second application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants Devi Singh Son Of Shri Chatar Singh and Kantilal Son Of Son Of Shri Chatar Singh in a matter arising out of FIR No. 247/2015 registered at P.S. Vigyan Nagar, Kota City, Kota wherein learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) No.4, Kota in sessions case No. 224/2018 has convicted appellants under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n) IPC and 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act. Both the appellants were awarded rigorous imprisonment of 14

¶15

[SOSA-290/2024]

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

years under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, 5(m)/6 and 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, respectively beside other sentence.

¶18

On earlier occasion, application for suspension of sentence was dismissed on 18.04.2023. During course of argument on 26.02.2024, application for suspension of sentence of appellantKantilal was withdrawn hence same was dismissed as withdrawn, therefore we are considering the application of appellant Devi Singh Son Of Shri Chatar Singh.

¶19

Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that no specific charge was alleged against the appellant Devi Singh for involvement in offence of rape with minor victim. He submitted that as per report submitted by the complainant, the main allegation is upon Kantilal and his wife Rajubai @ Sunita and police after investigation has filed charge-sheet against Devi Singh under Sections 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act. He specifically submitted that the prosecution had not filed case under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act against the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is in custody since his arrest and he has already undergone around 9 years of imprisonment out of maximum sentence of 14 years, therefore he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

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

¶22

On 18.04.2023, this court has dismissed the application for suspension of sentence wherein we have observed that:

¶23

[SOSA-290/2024]

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

“The fact of the matter is that a report (Ex.P-4) was submitted by mother of victim on 07.05.2015 to S.P. Kota City and on the basis of this report an FIR, (Ex.P-22) was lodged. The allegation in aforesaid report were made on Kantilal and his wife for enticing and luring minor daughter of complainant. On the basis of this report, the victim was recovered on 07.09.2015 and a memo (Ex.P-2) was prepared thereafter medical of victim was conducted and in report (Ex.P-1) it was indicated that victim was carrying a pregnancy of 7 +/- 1 weeks. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants but after a lengthy trial from 29.07.2016 to 07.08.2021. Ultimately, both the appellants were found guilty and sentenced for a maximum period of 14 years under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act.

¶26

When we look at the evidence, the deposition of victim PW-6clearly indicated that she named both the appellants. She had clearly stated that she remained in the company of appellant No.2, Kantilal and later in the company of appellant No.1, Devi Singh and on multiple occasions in her examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination except these two appellants, no other individual was named. Now the question is whether the statement of PW-6 if inspires confidence then it is sufficient to uphold the conviction of appellants. Herein it is a case where both the appellants were charged for rape on different occasions but with the same girl. One of the appellant Kantilal was named in the FIR but after recovery of victim she named both the appellants in her statement recorded under

¶27

[SOSA-290/2024]

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

Section 164 Cr.P.C. and same is Ex.P-15. Herein, looking to the fact that date of birth on the date of incident as recorded by learned trial Court is 12.12.1997 meaning thereby on02.05.2015, she was less than eighteen years of age. The question of raising alarm and moving in public place are different issues and same can be answered when appeal will be considered on merits.

¶30

The evidence led by prosecution was found to be sufficient by learned trial Court while arriving at the conclusion of conviction and I do not see any glaring mistake which prima-facie appeals to this Court to draw a conclusion that learned trial Court has not considered the evidence on merits but final opinion on weighing of evidence on applicable principle of law can be considered by this Court at the time of consideration of appeal but without expressing any opinion I do not see any reason to allow the application for suspension on merits.”

¶31

A perusal of evidence of victim indicated that victim has named Devi Singh as one of the persons who committed rape with her on multiple occasions. Further charge was modified against the appellant Devi Singh. The victim has maintained her allegations from statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to statement recorded before the trial court therefore there is no ground on merits for release of present appellant.

¶32

A perusal of custody certificate indicated that the appellant Devi Singh remained in custody for more than 8 years 7 months, which includes earned remission of six months and 13 days. Present appellant was convicted for a maximum period of 14 years

¶33

[SOSA-290/2024]

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

but this sentence was passed in three different offence by the trial court.

¶36

Having considered the gravity of matter, particularly involvement of minor victim who was carrying pregnancy at the time of recovery, therefore it is not a fit case wherein appellant be released on bail only on the ground of period of custody.

¶37

Accordingly, second application for suspension of sentence of appellant Devi Singh is dismissed.

¶38

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶40

PREETI VALECHA /15

Devi Singh Son of Shri Chatar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh Son of Shri Chatar 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

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)

Rajaram @ Raju S/O Basanta Ram Gurjar 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