State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor v. For

Smt. Harpreet Kaur W/o Balvindar Singh, R/o Simlapuri Gali 19 Ludiyana Presently Vishist Colony Mohan Nagar P.s. Sadar Kurushestra (Harayana) (Presently Confined At Central Jail Sikar) State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. Versus ----Petitioners ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Mr. Anuj Rohila & Ms. Muskan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 09/04/2025 Order

1. Instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred on behalf of appellant-accused Sonu @ Sonali W/o Raju and Smt. Harpreet Kaur W/o Balvindar Singh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated

07.10.2024 in sessions case No. (CIS) No. 122/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.2, Sikar whereby [2025:RJ-JP:15997] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1902/2024] convicted Sonu @ Sonali was convicted and sentenced under Sections 343/34, 363/34, 366-A/34, 367/34, 370(4) IPC and Section 5 of PETA Act and whereas Harpreet Kaur was convicted under Sections 343/34, 366-A/34, 368/34, 370(4) of IPC and Section 5 of PETA Act.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants- accused submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by police. He also referred the cross- examination of material witnesses including victim and submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the material contradictions and inconsistencies which were enough to dent the case of prosecution. He further referred the statement of victim recorded as PW-16 and submitted that the statement itself makes her untrustworthy. He also referred the statement of father of victim and submitted that he has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He also submitted that as per statement of victim, one of the appellant is her sister-in-law and due to animosity she was named by complainant-party. He has also referred the delay in reporting the matter to the police and submitted that from the evidence on record the victim was neither subjected to any trade nor she was trafficked by any of the appellant-accused. He further referred the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 17.07.2017 and statement as PW-16 on 02.08.2024 and submitted that the improvement by victim is sufficient to discard the theory of prosecution. At last, he submitted that during trial both the accused were on bail and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. [2025:RJ-JP:15997] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1902/2024]

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted that complainant was duly informed about filing of this appeal. Perused the material available on record.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

5. On the basis of a written complaint Ex. P.1 filed by PW-1 (father of victim), FIR No. 228/2017 was registered at P.S. Neem Ka Thana, Sadar, Distt. Sikar under Sections 363, 366-A, IPC. After recovery on 12.07.2017, statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and same was exhibited as Ex. P.22. Victim was medically examined and a report Ex. P.6 was prepared. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Raju @ Rajesh, Sonu @ Sonali, Neeraj @Rahul @ Monu and Harpreet Kaur but Raju @ Rajesh, Neeraj @ Rahul @ Monu have expired during trial, therefore, proceedings were abated against them. After full trial, accused Sonu @ Sonali and Harpreet kaur were convicted and sentenced. The maximum sentence awarded is 10 years under Section 370(4) of IPC.

6. As per record both the accused were on bail during trial and there is no record whereby the appellants have misused the liberty granted to them. We have gone through the statement of victim recorded on 13.07.2017 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and exhibited as Ex. D.1 and also the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. exhibited as Ex. P.22. Also considered the medical report and statement of father recorded as PW-1.

7. At this stage, it is not possible to express any opinion on the merits of the case but having considered the fact that both the [2025:RJ-JP:15997] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1902/2024] appellants are females and they were on bail during trial, it is appropriate to allow the application for suspension of sentence of both the appellants.

8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the suspension of sentence application is hereby allowed and it is ordered that sentence of appellant-applicant accused Sonu @ Sonali W/o Raju @ Rajesh and Smt. Harpreet Kaur W/o Balvindar Singh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them 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 24.07.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

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

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

3. That if the appellants changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:15997] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1902/2024]

9. In case, the applicants have violated any condition then the order of suspension of sentence shall be recalled and cancelled.

10. Misc. Application stands disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. MONU /54 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J