Dismissed

Puneet @ Pradeep Tilokani Son of Late Shri Ramesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2025SOSA/2385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suspension of sentence application filed by an appellant convicted under POCSO, the High Court of Rajasthan examined arguments regarding lack of corroborative DNA evidence and FIR delay. Relying on the victim's age, statements, and medical evidence, the Court held it was not proper to suspend the sentence and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is dismissed. No suspension of sentence granted.

Puneet @ Pradeep Tilokani Son of Late Shri Ramesh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45134]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Application for Suspension Of Sentence No. 2385/2024

¶4

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 245/2023

¶6

Puneet @ Pradeep Tilokani Son Of Late Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Near Shanker General Store, Swastik Nagar, Fay Sagar Road, Police Station Ganj Ajmer (At present lodged in the Central Jail Ajmer)

¶7

----Accused appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant	: Mr. Ashvin Garg,Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Choudhary,Dy.G.A.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Order

¶14

11/11/2025

¶15

This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 430 BNSS, 2023 against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission, 2005 No.2, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 12/2022, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: U/s. 450 IPC: To undergo 5 years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month’s imprisonment

[2025:RJ-JP:45134]

[SOSA-2385/2024]

(2 of 4)

U/s. 456 IPC: To undergo 3 years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days’ imprisonment

¶20

U/s. 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act: To undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment

¶21

U/s. 3/4 of POCSO Act: To undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the houses of the accused appellant and the prosecutrix are opposite to each other, they were having friendship. He further submits that as per the statement of PW-7 Dr. Nupur Bharwad (Gynecologist) and PW-13 Dr. Neha Tanwar (Medical Jurist), there was no mark of injury on the private part of the prosecutrix. He further submits that FSL report also does not corroborate the prosecution story as the blood sample of accused appellant on FTA card did not match with his DNA profile obtained from exhibit no. 5 (Underwear of accused). He further submits that the alleged incident took place on 27.12.2021, whereas the FIR was lodged on 31.12.2021. Thus, there was 4 days’ delay in lodging the FIR. He further submits that investigating officer - Dharamveer Singh (PW14) in his cross-examination admitted that no sign of sexual intercourse were found at the place of occurrence. He further submits that neither footprint nor finger print were taken from the place of incident. There was no evidence of Spray nor any Spray was recovered from the place of incident. The accused appellant is in judicial custody from the past 4 years and 5 months. He has

[2025:RJ-JP:45134]

[SOSA-2385/2024]

(3 of 4)

no criminal antecedents. Rather, he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Hence, the sentence awarded to him by the trial court be suspended.

¶27

Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that in the School Admission Form (Ex.P/1) the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been recorded as 4.3.2007, which has been duly proved by Ms. Ranja Agarwal, Principal, Dropdi Devi Sr. Secondary School, Naya Bajar, Ajmer. In this view of the matter, as on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was about 14 years and 9 months’ age and thus, she was minor. He further submits that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.-P5) as well as in her Court statement recorded as PW-2, the prosecutrix levelled specific allegations of rape having been committed with her by the accused appellant. He further submits that from the medical evidence also, the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the sentence of the accused appellant should not be suspended.

¶28

Despite the information given to the complainant/victim by the learned PP about filing of the present suspension of sentence application as well as criminal appeal by the accused appellant, no one has put appearance on his/her behalf.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties considered the material on record.

¶30

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the prosecutrix, her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as also her Court statement and the

[2025:RJ-JP:45134]

[SOSA-2385/2024]

(4 of 4)

medical evidence available on record, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant.

¶35

The suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶37

DK/11

Puneet @ Pradeep Tilokani Son of Late Shri Ramesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet @ Pradeep Tilokani Son of Late Shri Ramesh Chand 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

V S/O Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh S/O. Shri Chiranji Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh S/O Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Arshad S/O Ameen @ Munna Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mujjaffar Khan Vs State

Raju Son of Prathya Vs State of Rajasthan