Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 207 (RAJ)

Santosh Bheel v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-18

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence. 2. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 28.10.2021. The appellant-applicant has been sentenced as under: Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 341 IPC Three months' Imprisonment ----- ----- 5(M)/6 of the POCSO Act Rigorous Life Imprisonment (till remainder of natural life) Rs.50,000/- Three years' S.I. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the appellant-applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of sexual assault levelled against the appellant-applicant by producing cogent and reliable evidence. Learned counsel has submitted that as hearing of the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant is likely to take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant may be suspended. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for suspension of sentence and argued that the appellant-applicant has been found guilty for committing offence of sexual assault upon a nine years’ old girl and convicted for the same by the trial court. It is submitted that the prosecution has produced evidence, by which, the charge of sexual assault upon a nine years’ old girl is sufficiently proved against the appellant-applicant. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that if the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant is suspended, there is all possibility that he may again indulge in criminal activities in future. It is, thus, prayed that the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant be rejected. 5. Having gone through the overall facts and circumstances of the case; after carefully scrutinizing the record of the case, particularly keeping in view the fact that the appellant-applicant has been convicted for the offence of sexual assault upon a nine years’ minor girl, no case for suspension of sentence is made out. 6. Hence, this application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.