State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor v. S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application

: Ms. Meenakshi Pareek Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Ms. Kamini Pareek Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari for Mr. Dheeraj Singhal Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anshul Sharma Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 12/07/2025 Order

1. These four applications for suspension of sentence were preferred by appellants-accused – Leladayal @ Sintu S/o Ramgopal, Paplesh S/o Shriman, Roop Chand S/o Rakesh and Nakul S/o Bahadur in pending appeals, filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 18.07.2022 in Sessions Case No. 03/2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Karauli, whereby appellant-accused Paplesh was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(d), 323 IPC and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Nakul, Leela Dayal @ Sintu and Roopchand under Sections 376(d), 323 IPC and 5G/6 POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellant is 20 years. [2025:RJ-JP:27008] (3 of 8) [SOSA-842/2023]

2. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of appellants-accused submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated. They further submitted that the age of victim has determined by Trial Court as 16 years and 2 months and she is a well-capable female to understand her well-being. They further submitted that initially Ex. P.1. report was filed on

10.09.2018 for missing of victim since 07.09.2018 under Section 363 IPC. They further submitted that no specific allegations were leveled just after recovery of victim. They further submitted that the statement recorded after recovery under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly indicate that victim has named 16 persons and it is a clear case of over implication.

3. Learned counsels for appellants further submitted that initially, a charge-sheet has been filed against Mahender, Kaptan and Akash but all were acquitted. They further submitted that thereafter charge-sheet is filed against Bablu, Nakul, Leela Dayal, Paplesh and Roop Chand and out of these 5 accused, Bablu was acquitted but other four were convicted by the Trial Court. They further submitted that there is no evidence on record to corroborate the allegations made by victim and she has leveled allegation in free style manner. They further submitted that the statement of victim PW-6 is not trustworthy and she is not a witness of sterling worth.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Paplesh has submitted that as per prosecution Paplesh was teacher and victim was liking him and due to this liking, she had developed an affair with Paplesh. He also submitted that this victim has eloped on her own from her house and she has never cried and asked for help [2025:RJ-JP:27008] (4 of 8) [SOSA-842/2023] from anyone. He also submitted that this victim was not recovered from possession of appellant-accused to show that victim travelled on her own after eloping on 07.09.2018. He further referred the cross-examination of victim particularly in light of her Examination-in-Chief and named several persons which were related to appellant-accused Paplesh and within personal knowledge of victim. He further submitted that neither any medical nor FSL report is available to show that the victim was ever raped forcibly by this appellant-accused. He further referred cross-examination of other witnesses and submitted that the Trial Court has failed in its duty while interpreting the evidence of prosecution and without considering cross-examination has convicted accused. He further referred the evidence about age and submitted that the age of victim is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the victim was well-developed, adult female. At last, he submitted that the appellant has a future and he is in custody for last more than 7 and he is entitled to be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Nakul has submitted that the statement of victim under Sections 161 and 164 are not trustworthy and she has never identified anyone. He further referred statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. P.17 and submitted that the victim has failed to prove involvement of appellant-accused Nakul. He further submitted that victim is no trustworthy and she has failed to provide date of incident.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Leela Dayal has also adopted common arguments and submitted that only being relative of Paplesh, this appellant-accused was arrayed as an accused and the accused was never identified by victim. She also [2025:RJ-JP:27008] (5 of 8) [SOSA-842/2023] submitted statement of PW-5 Guddi (mother of Roop Chand) and submitted that only due to relation with petitioner has assisted to procure a room on rent. She further submitted that Leela Dayal was not involved in the incident and he only introduced Paplesh to ladlord. Similalry, she referred statement of PW-6 Jitender and also of PW-15 Munshi Lal and submitted that Paplesh and girl introduced themselves as husband and wife and the allegation on present appellant is not proved from any of the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for appellant-accused Roop Chand has submitted that he is innocent person and falsely implicated just because he is son of landlady PW-5 (Guddi). He further submitted that no role and involvement of appellant is proved and corroborated from other prosecution evidence.

8. Learned counsels for the appellants-accused submitted that this is a not case of gang rape rather it is a case which was originally registered against Paplesh due to friendship with victim but others were arrayed as they were relatives or friends of Paplesh. They further submitted that even Roop Chand never met victim but he was arrayed as an accused if he committed gang rape with victim. They also submitted that alleged incidents committed at different intervals and different places and these are mere allegations and not more than allegations. They further submitted that accused Nakul was on bail during trial, though Roop Chand, Paplesh and Leela Dayal were remained in custody but now all of them are entitled to be released only on the ground of period of custody. [2025:RJ-JP:27008] (6 of 8) [SOSA-842/2023]

9. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant.

10. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that this is a case of gang rape where a young victim was intimidated and sexually assaulted by many person for a continuous period of more than three months. He further submitted that since it is a case of gang rape, and, there is no need for any specific corroboration as the law of presumption is applicable in the instant case.

11. Heard learned counsels for the parties along with learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

12. On basis of report dated 10.09.2018 lodged by PW-1 (father of victim) about elopement of victim on 07.09.2018 on enticement of Paplesh, FIR No. 284/2018 was registered at Police Station Todabhim, Distt. Karauli. After initial investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Mahender, Kaptan and Akash under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC and 16/17 POCSO Act. Thereafter, police has filed charge-sheet against Bablu, Nakul, Leeladayal @ Sintu, Roop Chand and Paplesh. After framing the charge and consolidating the charge-sheets, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they have examined DW-1 Pritam and exhibited 3 documents. The Trial Court has acquitted accused Mahender, Kaptan, Akash and Bablu but convicted Paplesh, Roop Chand, Leeladayal and Nakul. The maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellant is 20 years.

13. The record suggests that appellant-accused Nakul was on bail during trial and rest of the accused Leeladayal @ Sintu, [2025:RJ-JP:27008] (7 of 8) [SOSA-842/2023] Paplesh and Roop Chand remained in custody throughout the trial till today. The record also suggest that the period of custody of Paplesh is 7 years 1 month and 15 days and period of custody of Roop Chand is also 7 years and 30 days whereas custody of Leela Dayal is 7 year 1 months and 14 days and the period of custody of Nakul is 3 years 5 months and 15 days. All these accused were convicted for a maximum period of 20 years and the allegation is of gang rape.

14. The victim is examined as PW-6 and we have considered her statement particularly her detailed cross-examination. We have also considered other evidence as referred by learned counsels for the parties. The statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded after recovery on 22.01.2019. In her statement, she has named all these appellants. The detailed statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly indicate the role and involvement of these appellants.

15. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case particularly the role of each appellant. The appellants Leeladayal @ Sintu, Roop Chand and Nakul were not named in FIR but Paplesh was named for enticement in elopement. The victim eloped on 07.09.2018 and she was recovered on 19.01.2019, and she remained out of her home more than three and half months. After recovery, she was medically examined and we have considered her report about medical examination. The victim has named all appellants for committing rape with her on different occasions and the age of victim was determined by Trial Court on basis of date of birth i.e.

12.06.2002 and in the month of September, 2018 the age of [2025:RJ-JP:27008] (8 of 8) [SOSA-842/2023] victim was more than 16 years but less than 17 years, thus victim is minor and her consent is immaterial. The victim has narrated the incident which began from Paplesh and later she named involvement of several persons including other three petitioners and narrated the entire incident. She has also narrated the fact that an attempt was made to sell her.

16. Since, this is a very serious case relating to gang rape with a minor girl and allegation is of aggravated penetrative sexual assault so, looking to the gravity of the charge, the appellants are not entitled to be released on bail.

17. In view of aforesaid, the application for suspension of sentence preferred by Leladayal @ Sintu S/o Ramgopal, Paplesh S/o Shriman, Roop Chand S/o Rakesh and Nakul S/o Bahadur are hereby dismissed.

18. List these criminal appeals for hearing in the month of December, 2025. MONU /119-122 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J