Narendra Kumar S/O Shri Laxman Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:44962]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc 2^nd Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1760/2025

Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Laxman Father/o Shri Laxman, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ajeta Police Station- Hindoli DistrictBundi At Present Residing As Tenant Plot No. 59, Krishna Vihar Behind Maharani Garden New Sanganer Road Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur Rajasthan (At Present Under Judicial Custody Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Throug PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

27/10/2025

¶13

This second application for suspension of execution of sentence application has been filed on behalf of the appellant who has been convicted for offences under Section 363 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act in alternate 376 IPC and 5(m)/(l)/Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to maximum punishment for twenty years vide judgment dated 29.04.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.21/2021 by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, No.3, Jaipur Metro-I, Rajasthan.

¶14

By order dated 16.07.2024, first application for suspension of execution of sentence was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty

[2025:RJ-JP:44962]

[SOSA-1760/2025]

(2 of 3)

to renew the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence, if the appeal is not heard finally within one year.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned trial court did not appreciate evidence and other material in right and correct perspective and committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant applicant for the aforesaid offences. The appellant did not commit the alleged offence. The prosecution failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence with respect to the actual and correct age of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix cannot be said to be a reliable and trustworthy witness as she gave different statements in her statement recorded during investigation and court proceedings. He thus, submits that the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence and in absence thereof, there available strong grounds with the appellant for assailing the impugned judgment. He argues that the appellant has been behind the bars since 31.08.2019 and there are bleak chances of final hearing of the appeal in near future.

¶20

Despite information, no one appears on behalf of the victim to oppose the application.

¶21

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes this application for SOS. He submits that after considering and appreciating the entire evidence in detail, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as above. He argues that the appellant is distant relative i.e., cousin maternal uncle of the victim, who allured the victim and took her away with himself and thereafter, sexually exploited her. The victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and as per medical evidence also, the victim was

[2025:RJ-JP:44962]

[SOSA-1760/2025]

(3 of 3)

subjected to sexual intercourse. He drew attention of the Court towards statement of PW.11 Dr. Pushpa Soni, who medically examined the victim.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The victim has clearly deposed against the appellant that he committed rape upon her which was also corroborated by the medical evidence as alleles of DNA profile obtained from blood sample of victim on FTA card and blood sample of accused on FTA Card are accounted in the mixed DNA profile obtained from stains detected on underwear of victim. The victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and thus, consent, if any is also immaterial. As per the prosecution case, the appellant is a distant relative (cousin maternal uncle) of the victim. Further, as per the material available on record, no efforts were made on behalf of the appellant for final hearing of the appeal. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced by both the sides as also looking to the nature and seriousness of allegations, I am not inclined to accept the instant application for suspension of execution of sentence.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

LALIT MOHAN /16

Narendra Kumar S/O Shri Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar S/O Shri Laxman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Sharma S/O Ramdayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Swarnjeet Singh S/O Shri Harbhajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Varun Kumar S/O Sh. Shailendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratiram Meena S/O Shri Sriman Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj S/O Shri Heera Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Omega Elevators, Vs State of Rajasthan