Manraj S/O Satyanarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2346]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1542/2024

¶4

In

¶5

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2060/2024

¶6

Manraj S/o Satyanarayan, Resident Of Tulsipura, Tan Galiya Kuwa, Police Station Karwar, District Bundi. At Present Pratap Colony, Sumerganj Mandi, Police Station Indergarh, District Bundi (Raj).

¶7

(At Present in Central Jail, Kota).

¶8

----Accused appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant	: Mr. Amir Aziz, Advocate
	Mr. Rajveer Singh Jat,Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. GA
For Complainant	: Mr. Deepak Pareek,Advocate

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order

¶14

20/01/2026

¶15

This suspension of sentence application has been filed by the accused appellant under Section 430 BNSS against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2024 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005, No.1, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 164/2022, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced as under:

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:2346]

[SOSA-1542/2024]

Offence	Punishment	Fine	In default of Payment of fine
U/s. 363 IPC:	To undergo 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment	Rs. 10,000/-	To further undergo 2 months’ rigorous imprisonment
U/s. 366 IPC:	To undergo 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment	Rs. 20,000/-	To further undergo 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment
U/s. 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act	To undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment	Rs. 50,000/-	To further undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per missing report (Ex.P/1), the prosecutrix took away money from the complainant’s nephew house. He further submits that in Aadhar Card (Ex.D/1), the prosecutrix date of birth 12.1.2004 was mentioned and her birth certificate was not produced. He further submits that the Certificate dated 11.10.2022 (Ex.P/12) issued by the Head Master, Maa Bharti Bal Vidhya Mandir, Mohanpura, Bundi did not bear any serial number.

¶21

He further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P/9), the prosecutrix stated that she on her own sat on the appellant’s motor cycle and went with him at his house Sumerganj for the purpose of solemnizing marriage. She further stated that thereafter they sat in a vehicle and went to Kota, Bundi and then Jaipur. Thus, it is clear that the prosecutrix was major and she on her volition went with the accused appellant on his motor cycle and took away the money.

¶22

He further submits that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix stated that the appellant

[2026:RJ-JP:2346]

[SOSA-1542/2024]

(3 of 4)

did not make any physical relation with her and as per the medical report (Ex.P/7) also, no injury was seen on the body of the prosecutrix. Therefore, no sexual intercourse took place in the matter and the credibility of the prosecution story is doubtful.

¶27

He further submits that the accused appellant was on bail during trial. He is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is in judicial custody since the past about 18 months therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused appellant be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶28

Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the same and submit that in the Certificate (Ex. P/12) dated 11.10.2022 issued by Head Master, Maa Bharti Bal Vidhya Mandir, Mohanpura, where the prosecutrix took admission in Ist class, her date of birth 12.1.2006 was mentioned, which was duly corroborated from the evidence of PW-5 Raghvendra Shukla, Head Master, Maa Bharti Bal Vidhya Mandir, Mohanpura. This fact was also duly proved from the prosecutrix Secondary Examination certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, wherein her date of birth 12.1.2006 was recorded. Thus, it is well established that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was minor.

¶29

They further submit that as per FSL Report (Ex. C/1), the blood sample of accused was found on the underwear of the victim.

¶30

They further submit that in her statement recorded as PW-2, the prosecutrix levelled specific allegations against the

[2026:RJ-JP:2346]

[SOSA-1542/2024]

(4 of 4)

accused appellant that he took her forcefully and made physical relations with her forcibly. She further stated that previous statement was given by her on the askance of the accused appellant.

¶35

The trial court on the basis of material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, and therefore, the sentence of the accused appellant should not be suspended.

¶36

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

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the prosecutrix, statement of the prosecutrix as well as the DNA report, I do not deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused appellant.

¶38

Accordingly this suspension of sentence application filed by the appellant is dismissed.

¶39

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶40

DK/13

Manraj S/O Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manraj S/O Satyanarayan 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

Diwan Singh Vs State

Kajan Singh and Ors. Vs State

Ugam Singh Vs State

Juvenile Conflicting With Law R S/O Shri Munshi @ (Natural Guardian) Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop S/O Chhagna Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas @ Rahul S/O Sh. Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan