Rajesh S/O Ramotar Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1405/2024

¶3

In

¶4

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2080/2024

¶5

Rajesh S/o Ramotar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kerwa Jaat, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Alwar District Alwar (At Present The Accused Petitioner Is Confined In The Central Jail Alwar)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Amit Gupta, Dy. GA-cum-PP
		Mr. Dishant Karnawat for
		Mr. J.P. Rinwa

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

06/10/2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of registration of FIR, the age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years. Learned counsel submits that, as per the statement of the prosecutrix, rape was continuously committed with her by the appellant since last more than two years, from the date of registration of the FIR. Learned counsel submits that there was conscious relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix and the medical report as well as the DNA report do not corroborate the allegations of rape. Learned counsel submits that the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and the hearing and disposal of the appeal is bound to take its own time,

¶15

[SOSA-1405/2024]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

therefore, the sentence of the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal.

¶18

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the suspension of sentence application and submitted that the appellant has been continuously committing rape with the prosecutrix since last more than two years and he was threatening the prosecutrix with death threats, in case, any FIR is registered by her against him. Learned counsel submits that since the FIR was registered after 15 days of the incident, hence, the medical evidence including DNA is not corroborating the allegations of rape. Learned counsel submits that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was a minor, hence under this circumstance, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 IPC, therefore, sentence awarded to the appellant be not suspended.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the fact that at the time of registration of FIR, the age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years and when she was medically examined, the allegations of rape were not corroborated even by DNA report and also looking to the fact that the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and hearing/disposal of the instant appeal is bound to take its own time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant.

¶21

[SOSA-1405/2024]

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellant under Section 430 BNSS is allowed and the sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge for Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 No.1 Alwar in Sessions Case No.49/2023 (CIS No.36/2023) against the appellant shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court and he shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for appearance before this Court on 07.11.2025 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

¶24

That he shall appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

¶25

That if the applicant changes the place of residence and mobile number, he will give in writing his changed address and mobile number to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

¶26

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

¶27

Appellant shall deposit a fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.

¶28

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accusedappellant was 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

¶29

[SOSA-1405/2024]

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

Karan/75

Rajesh S/O Ramotar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh S/O Ramotar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Saini S/O Shri Khayali Ram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Zuber Abk Fashion Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Modi S/O Rajesh Kumar Modi Vs Reserve Bank of India

Abdul Kadir Son of Abdul Rehman Vs State of Rajasthan

Birdhichand S/O Shri Poonamchand @ Poonaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Bheel S/O Shri Mahadev Vs State of Rajasthan