State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. Connected

: Mr. Rajnessh Gupta with Mr. Ravindra For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma Mavliya Mr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/04/2025

1. Instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused Man Singh S/o Dev Narayan in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.07.2022 in Sessions Case No.30/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases), Sawaimadhopur, whereby, applicant-accused was convicted under Sections 376D, IPC and 5(G)/6 POCSO Act [2025:RJ-JP:16486] (2 of 7) [SOSA-1312/2024] and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with fine of ₹50,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for applicant is submits that applicant is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated by complainant party. He further submits that during period of Covid-19 and lockdown, a report was registered by complainant (uncle of victim) on 12.06.2020 about incident of evening of 14.05.2020, but without explaining the delay in reporting the matter to police. He submits that in her statement, victim has clearly mentioned that 3-4 days after the incident, she has informed the incident to her family members, but the complainant has not registered report till 22 days thereafter. He submits that there is an ongoing dispute between complainant and accused about a piece of land and to settle the score, a false case has been registered against the applicant. He also referred the statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-1 and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-6 and submitted that the story narrated by victim is not trustworthy and same is unbelievable. He further submits that when there is a lockdown across the country then it is not possible to procure Imarti (sweet) from a sweet shop and the complainant herself stated that co-accused has brought Imarti for her. He also submits that on 14.05.2020, there was a complete lockdown and no one was permitted to come out of home and roam on streets. He also submits that age of victim was recorded on the basis of Ex.P-14, wherein there is an over-writing and the age is recorded on the basis of T.C. He further submits that prosecution has claimed DoB of victim as 07.01.2004, whereas actual date of victim was

07.01.2001 and after editing 2001, it was made to 2004. He [2025:RJ-JP:16486] (3 of 7) [SOSA-1312/2024] further submitted that this can be verified from the fact from admission over witnesses, wherein the Court can estimate the age of victim. He also referred the site plan (Ex.P-21) and submitted that even after one month of incident, the crops were standing in the field where alleged rape has taken place. He further submitted that this was a case of false implication of present applicant and his wife at behest of complainant Ram Swaroop, who is having an ongoing dispute with accused. He also referred statement of PW1 and submitted that victim has herself admitted that after 4-5 days of incident, she has narrated the incident to her family members, but they have not registered FIR against the accused. He also referred the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 and submitted that the testimony of these witnesses is not trustworthy and the Trial Court has committed serious error while considering the evidence of victim as gospel truth. He further referred the statement of PW-7, PW-15 and PW-16 and submitted that no video or photograph was recovered from mobile of applicant- accused. He further referred the evidence and submitted that even there existence a toilet in the house of victim/complainant and no one was going at open place for natures call. At last, he submitted that this is a clear case of false implication to settle the score and applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has referred the Para No.38 of judgment of Trial Court and submitted that the victim in her deposition narrated the entire incident and same is trustworthy. He submits that delay in such matter does not affect either prosecution or the testimony of [2025:RJ-JP:16486] (4 of 7) [SOSA-1312/2024] the victim. He also submits that delay was explained by the prosecution and same was considered by Trial Court. He further referred the evidence on record and submitted that the incident was found proved, therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record.

5. On basis of report dated 12.06.2020 (Ex.P-1) FIR No.145/2020 was registered at P.S. Malarna Doongar on

12.06.2020 under Sections 363, 366A, 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act. In Ex.P1, the incident of 14.05.2020 is mentioned and despite this, the complainant has altercation with accused on 11.06.2020. There was a delay of nearly 28 days in lodging report to the police. The statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.06.2020, wherein she mentioned about eating two imartis given by co-accused Roshni on 14.05.2020. The victim has also mentioned that after 3-4 days, she has narrated the incident to her family. The statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.06.2020 and exhibited as Ex.P-6.

6. The victim was examined as PW-2 and in Examination-in- Chief, she narrated that after 5-6 days, when co-accused Roshni again contacted her then she has disclosed the incident to her aunty PW-4. Complainant was examined as PW-3, the admission of PW-3 indicate that accused (present applicant) and co-accused Roshni (wife of present applicant) are living in front of his house. The admission of PW-3 indicate that victim has disclosed the incident to his wife after 2-4 days of incident. PW-4 (wife of [2025:RJ-JP:16486] (5 of 7) [SOSA-1312/2024] complainant and aunty of victim) was examined, who also admits that she and her sister PW-1 (mother of victim) were informed about the incident. Herein this case, aforementioned facts clearly indicate that there was a delay in reporting the matter to police.

7. The prosecution has claimed of DoB of victim as 07.01.2004 and PW-6 Roop Singh Gurjar and PW-8 Suresh were examined to prove the age of victim. The application form Ex.P-9 was filled by PW-3 (uncle of victim), wherein DoB is 07.01.2004. In Ex.10A school registered the DoB is 07.01.2004. On basis of T.C., DoB

07.01.2004 was registered in Government School, Kothali. The application form Ex.P-14 indicate that there is over-writing in “2004” (mentioned in numerically numbers) but there is no over- writing at any other place. The first admission form was of

04.07.2009, wherein DoB was registered at 07.01.2004. In view of Section 94 of JJ Act, the Trial Court has determined the age on basis of evidence of PW-6 (Roop Singh Gurjar). The ground to challenge the DoB can be considered at the time of final adjudication.

8. We have gone through the statement of PW-2(victim), PW-1 (mother of victim), PW-3 (uncle of victim and complainant) and PW-4 (wife of complainant) and also the cross-examination of PW- 16 (Rakesh Kumar Rajora) about the incident and also the investigation conducted by him. We have also considered statement of PW-18 (Dr. Anju Meena), wherein she opined that there was no injury on body of victim. As per PW-3 (Ram Swarop) and Hari Narayan S/o Ratan has seen victim and co-accused Roshni, when they were going for nature’s call. It is also admitted that accused-Man Singh is married person and having two [2025:RJ-JP:16486] (6 of 7) [SOSA-1312/2024] children. The admission also indicate that they were regularly visiting at each other’s house.

9. We have considered letter dated EX.D1, which was written by applicant-accused while he was in custody and also gone through the defence evidence produced by accused. No person other than family members of victim were examined in support of incident.

10. The SOS application of accused-Roshni was allowed by this Court on 21.07.2023 and the entire case is based on oral testimony of victim as there is neither any injury nor any FSL/DNA report.

11. Having considered that this applicant remain in custody since

03.07.2020 and total period of custody is more than 5 years, 3 months and 20 days, it is not possible to consider merits of the case.

12. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case, but considering several circumstances as narrated hereinabove, I am of considered view that this is a fit case, wherein indulgence of bail can be granted to the applicant.

13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellant-applicant accused-Man Singh S/o Dev Narayan is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that he would execute a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on

29.07.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- [2025:RJ-JP:16486] (7 of 7) [SOSA-1312/2024]

1. That the appellant accused shall not contact or connect directly or indirectly with victim or any of her family member.

2. That the appellant accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and not repeat crime of any nature during period of suspension of sentence/bail.

3. That the appellant will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

4. That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

5. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

14. In case, the applicant has violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled.

15. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

16. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2059/2022:-

1. List along with S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1529/2022 in the month of October, 2025. GAURAV /37-38 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J