ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. The instant suspension of sentence application is preferred by the accused-appellant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2023 in Sessions Case No.72/2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Ajmer. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon the grounds of appeal submitted that for alleged incident of year 2019, a report was registered on 06.05.2021 without sufficient explanation of delay. He further submitted that the entire story has no basis except oral version of victim reported after several months. He further submitted that the appellant was working as Football Coach and due to non-selection of a girl, she made false allegation against the appellant. He also submitted that the age of victim was not established beyond reasonable doubt as there is no supporting document on record. He further submitted that the testimony of victim is not trustworthy and learned trial court has placed reliance upon testimony of victim which is not supported by any corroborative evidence. He also referred the grounds raised by the appellant and submitted that the disposal of appeal will take its own time and the appellant has strong case to succeed in appeal. He also submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he had not misused the liberty granted to him. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that he has already filed reply on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 5. The complainant was already informed but no reply was filed despite opportunity to father of victim. 6. A written report Ex.P14 was filed before the S.H.O. Police Station Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh by Housemistress of a school reporting that a student “E” (victim) has faced incident of sexual molestation in year 2019 when she has visited Ajmer, during an off campus visit by perpetrator, the then part time Coach. On basis of statement of victim, the matter was forwarded to Ajmer Police and after receipt of information, FIR No.162/2021 was registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet under Sections 376(3) of IPC and Sections 3/4 & 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents. On basis of statement of victim, the matter was forwarded to Ajmer Police and after receipt of information, FIR No.162/2021 was registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet under Sections 376(3) of IPC and Sections 3/4 & 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. After framing charge, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC but he has not submitted any defence evidence. Learned trial court has convicted the present appellant under Section 376(3) of IPC and Section 5(F) and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to the present appellant is 20 years under Section 376(3) of IPC and also under Section 5(F) and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act. 7. A perusal of record indicate that victim was examined as PW-1 whereas school teachers were examined as PW-4 to PW-7, PW-16. Another teacher PW-8 was examined to prove date of birth of victim whereas father of victim was examined as PW-3 and mother of victim as PW-2 and friend of victim, who was part of visit to Ajmer, was examined as PW-15. 8. The evidence submitted prosecution indicate that the date of birth of victim was 07.05.2005 and in support of the age of victim, PW-8 was examined by prosecution who exhibited Ex.P3 to Ex.P7. There is no other suggestion about any other date except estimation due to length of marriage of parents of victim, thus the trial court has no option except to believe that on 06.08.2019 (date of incident), the age of victim was 14 years 2 months and 13 days. It is also established on record that the parents of victim was educated and father of victim is a Pilot in an airlines company. Accordingly, the trial court has considered the issue of date of birth and the objection as raised about the presumption of age, were discarded by the trial court. 9. The victim was examined as PW-1 and from her deposition, it is established that there was delay of more than 1 year and 8 months in reporting the matter to police. If we consider the statement of PW-4, then it is established that on relevant time from 05.08.2019 to 11.08.2019, victim along with other girls and PW-4 have visited Ajmer and they stayed there. The appellant (accused) was also a part of the team. If we consider the statement of PW-4, then it is established that on relevant time from 05.08.2019 to 11.08.2019, victim along with other girls and PW-4 have visited Ajmer and they stayed there. The appellant (accused) was also a part of the team. The mental status of victim can be understood from the evidence of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. A combined reading of all these witnesses clearly shows that victim was under trauma and only after awareness program and counselling, she spoke about ordeal faced by her during visit to Ajmer, thus, the delay is well explained. 10. Having considered the fact that victim has deposed against the appellant and she was also supported by other surroundings including her friend PW-15 and same were found to be trustworthy by the trial court, thus, it is not possible for us to disbelieve the statement at this stage. The deposition of victim was considered as trustworthy by the trial court. It is settled proposition of law that if testimony of victim inspires confidence then a conviction can be based upon such deposition. 11. The counsel has submitted that the appellant is on bail during trial, so he is entitled to be released on bail. Here in this case, the appellant was on bail during trial and that too during period of Covid-19. 12. Here in this case, the victim has supported the case of prosecution and her testimony was found as trustworthy. Therefore, the appellant, working as Football Coach in the school where victim was studying, and both were part of off campus tour to Ajmer in August, 2019. During off campus tour to Ajmer from Himachal Pradesh, the incident was committed multiple times by the present appellant, who was working as a guardian to protect the girl student(s), who were part of contingent. 13. Considering the gravity and heinousness of matter, I am of view that this is not a fit case wherein the appellant is entitled for bail. 14. In view of aforesaid, the suspension of sentence application preferred by the present appellant is hereby dismissed. 15. List the main appeal for hearing in the month of July, 2025.