JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 10125 of 2024 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 23.11.2022 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Garhwa in POCSO Case No.47 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and shall pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2) (i) of the I.P.C. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated. The reason for such argument is that the appellant is not named in the First Information Report. 3. The further reason is that the appellant has been identified by the victim after about more than two months of the occurrence which itself suggests the falsity of the prosecution version. 4. The ground has been taken that even the D.N.A. profile is being not matched with the story which has been narrated by the victim. 5. The learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant is the resident of Uttar Pradesh and as such there is no occasion available to him to come to the State of Jharkhand in the locality where the victim resides and to commit the crime. 6. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is therefore fit case for suspension of sentence, during pendency of the instant appeal. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that the prosecution version has fully been supported by the victim, who has been examined as P.W-3. 8. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid argument has submitted that it is therefore not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the Lower Court Record and the material exhibits particularly the DNA profile. 10. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the Lower Court Record and the material exhibits particularly the DNA profile. 10. This Court has gone through the testimony of the victim who has been examined as PW-3, who has fully supported the prosecution version. It further appears that the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusive finding with respect to the age of the victim i.e. assessed to be 9 years at the time of commission of crime. 11. It further appears that the narration of the occurrence which has been given by the victim, the PW-3, which cannot be said to suffer from any doubt/suspicion, if her testimony which has been recorded in the cross-examination will be compared from the examination of statement recorded in the examination in-chief. 12. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which also remained intact as was submitted by her in the First Informant Report. The commission of crime is being also supported by the doctor. 13. The ground which has been agitated on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. on consideration by us, is of the view that the same is not material and on that ground the prosecution case cannot be said to be false, reason being that the victim was in hospital for 10 to 12 days for getting her treatment where she was found to be profuse bleeding and the doctor in his report has stated that the victim was treated by giving vaginal pack in the private part of the victim. 14. It has also come in the testimony of doctor that the reason for such a profuse bleeding is the forceful penetration of blunt object probably forceful sexual intercourse. 15. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that this is not a fit case for consideration of suspension of sentence. 16. Accordingly, I.A. No.10125 of 2024 stands rejected. 17. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the prosecution on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.