State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Chiranji Lal Son Of

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Chiranji Lal Son Of Shri Ramlal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 2-A, Govind Vihar, Shriram Ji Nangal, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Kuldeep Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 20/05/2025 Order

1. Instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by accused Sonu @ Raju @ Banti son of Mangi Lal in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated

31.10.2023 in sessions case No. 100/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.1 Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur whereby this appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 5(L)/6, 11(iv)(v)/12 and 15(2) POCSO Act, Sections 506, 336, 427/34 IPC and Section 67-B(A)(E) of Information Technology Act. The maximum sentence awarded to present appellant-accused is 20 years. [2025:RJ-JP:21512] (2 of 5) [SOSA-204/2024]

2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that appellant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by complainant. He further submitted that the prosecution has claimed, the age of victim as 17 years and to prove the age, has examined PW-4 (Babu Lal) who exhibited P-10 to P-13 but he admitted that no birth certificate was procured at the time of admission. He also submitted that there was overwriting on admission form Ex. P-12 and Trial Court has not considered cutting in the record. He further referred Ex. P-1 submitted by PW-1 (father of victim) and submitted that this report was registered after a delay of more than 6 months and no specific details about the incident were mentioned in the report. He further referred the statement of PW-1 and submitted that prior to registration of report he was well-aware about the incident but he has not filed a complaint before the police. He also referred the statement of victim (PW-5) and submitted that the statement of victim is not trustworthy and in her cross-examination, she has admitted so many facts which are sufficient to disbelieve the story narrated by her. He also submitted that PW-5 (victim) has mentioned that appellant-accused has taken her to a lonely place and after showing knife and firearm, the accused has committed rape with her. He also submitted that police has not recovered any knife and firearm from the possession of the appellant. He further submitted that the description of incident narrated by PW-5 makes her untrustworthy and her deposition is full of lies. He also referred the alleged recovery of photographs and submitted that no photographs were recovered from the possession of the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:21512] (3 of 5) [SOSA-204/2024]

3. He also submitted that no independent witness was procured by the Investigating Officer to prove memos of recoveries. He further submitted that even the call details were not proved before the Trial Court. He also submitted that investigation is faulty and same suffers from several shortcomings but the Trial Court has ignored the same. He further referred the statement of PW-6 (Madan Lal) and submitted that a fact was not established that any obscene photographs was sent to Madan Lal. He also referred the story narrated by victim and her family members and submitted that police has not collected any material evidence to connect present appellant. He also submitted that victim has alleged intimidation on multiple times but same were not proved by victim (PW-5) by leading any evidence. He further referred the cross-examination of PW-13 and submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that this appellant was involved in the incident and he has committed rape with victim. At last, he submitted that this appellant-accused is in custody for last more than 4 years and 11 months and disposal of appeal will take its own time, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record.

5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

6. On basis of report Ex. P-1 lodged by PW-1 (father of victim) about rape, exploitation, blackmailing and intimation of his minor daughter by Bunty, Surender and Harkesh, FIR No. 367/2020 was registered at P.S. Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur. After investigation, [2025:RJ-JP:21512] (4 of 5) [SOSA-204/2024] police has filed a charge-sheet against Sonu @ Raju @ Bunty, Harkesh and Surender. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they have not submitted any defence evidence and two documents were exhibited in defence. Learned Trial Court has convicted present appellant-accused alongwith Surender and Harkesh.

7. Accused Surender and Harkesh have preferred criminal appeal No. 3311/2023 and 3324/2023 and their application for suspension of sentence was allowed on 04.01.2023. The facts clearly indicate that Surender was found guilty for offence under Sections 336, 427/34 IPC whereas Harkesh for offence under Sections 506, 336 and 427/34 IPC. The case of Surender and Harkesh is different than of present appellant.

8. The victim was examined as PW-5 and the age of victim is determined by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence of PW-4 (Babu Lal Sharma). As per record, the date of birth of victim is

01.07.2003 and she was less than 18 years of age. The grounds raised on determination of age can be considered at the time of final adjudication of the matter. The Trial Court is bound to determine age of victim under Section 94 of J.J. Act, 2015. A serious objection is raised about delay in filing report to the police. The report Ex. P-1 indicate that due to intimidation on call from different new numbers and pelting stones has forced the complainant to lodge the report. The complainant has also mentioned that he remained silent because of social respect and reputation. The narration of complainant in its report and its testimony as PW-1 clearly indicate that some obscene [2025:RJ-JP:21512] (5 of 5) [SOSA-204/2024] photographs of victim were sent on Whatsapp and same were produced by this complainant. The prosecution has further examined PW-6 (Madan Lal) and he deposed that accused has pelted stone on his house resulting in damage to windscreen of the car and also glass window of his house. This fact is also revealed that he received a photograph wherein appellant-accused was shown with victim in semi-nude position. PW-13 Arjunram, Investigating Officer has also deposed that he has seized two obscene photographs of victim in company of present appellant.

9. Having considered the evidence on record particularly of victim and relevant witnesses and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that victim was intimidated and terrorized by this appellant, therefore, this is not a fit case wherein this appellant be released on bail.

10. Moreover, the FSL report Ex. P-28 about the examination of two pictures on Whatsapp is also available on record. The victim has narrated the ordeal faced by her and the grounds raised by learned counsel requires adjudication at the time of final adjudication but this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted to the appellant-accused.

11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove the instant bail application of Sonu @ Raju @ Banti Son of Mangi Lal is hereby dismissed.

12. List the Criminal Appeal for hearing in November, 2025. MONU /05 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J