Dismissed

Dilip Kumar S/O Jwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2024SOSA/662/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused convicted of gang-raping a minor girl and throwing her into an open well sought suspension of sentence during appeal. Citing the victim's testimony identifying both accused and supporting FSL and DNA reports, the court found no ground for suspension and dismissed both applications.

What did the court decide?

None granted; suspension of sentence applications dismissed.

Dilip Kumar S/O Jwan Singh Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:45915-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 756/2024

¶4

¶5

D.B. Criminal Appeal No.145/2024

¶6

Vishnu Son Of Hakim Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Bhagori P S Bayana District Bharatpur At Present In Central Jail, Bharatpur

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, Through The P.p

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 662/2024

¶13

¶14

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.774/2024

¶15

Dilip Kumar S/o Jwan Singh, R/o Village Shergarh Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sewar)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Applicants(s)	:	Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Jaswant Rathore in SOSA No. 756/2024 Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal in SOSA No.662/2024
For State	:	Ms. Manju Dave, Additional Govt. Advocate Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Govt. Advocate
For Complainant(s)	:	Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal with Ms. Abhilasha Choudhary

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:45915-DB]

¶23

[SOSA-756/2024]

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶25

Order

¶26

06/11/2024

¶27

Accused-applicants have preferred these applications for suspension of sentence.

¶28

Heard on applications for Suspension of Sentence.

¶29

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that prosecutrix has given the statement on the basis of names uttered by the accused at the time of the incident. It is contended that as per the statement of prosecutrix, she gave the statement for the 1^st time when she gained consciousness in the hospital.

¶30

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-Dilip Kumar that in the initial statement of the prosecutrix, she had levelled allegations of rape only against Vishnu. It is also contended that in the FSL report, there is no connection established of accused-Dilip Kumar with the offence. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-Dilip Kumar that Dilip Kumar was on bail during trial.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed these applications for Suspension of Sentence. It is contended that from the entire statement of the prosecutrix, it is evident that two persons were involved in the commission of the offence and the Court has rightly convicted them. It is also contended that Dilip Kumar remained on bail only for the period of one month. It is further contended that victim has identified the accused in the Court and from the DNA report also, the offence of rape is made out against Vishnu.

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[2024:RJ-JP:45915-DB]

¶34

[SOSA-756/2024]

¶35

We have considered the contentions and have perused the records as well as the testimony of the victim.

¶36

As per the prosecutrix, both the accused were involved in the commission of the offence. The prosecutrix is a young child aged 14 years and 11 months, who was subjected to rape and then was thrown in an open well from where she was recovered. The prosecutrix sustained multiple fractures of ribs and from the FSL and DNA reports also, the offence of rape is established.

¶37

Considering the above and taking note of the fact that both the accused are involved in the commission of offence, we are not inclined to allow the applications for Suspension of Sentence.

¶38

Accordingly, applications for Suspension of Sentence are dismissed.

¶39

Copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶40

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶41

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶42

LAKSHYA-DAKSH/119-120

Dilip Kumar S/O Jwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar S/O Jwan 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

The State of Rajasthan Vs G.R. Infraprojects Ltd.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Hq) Vs Hari Ballabh Malav S/O Shri Rang Lal Malav

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Hq) Vs Anjala Agarwal W/O Dr. R.K. Agrawal

Ramdutt Son of Shri Asharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Puniram Son of Laduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Mali S/O Pukhraj Vs State of Rajasthan