MAHESH GOYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL . M.B. 2248/2013 (for suspension of sentence) 1. This is an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail. As per the prosecution's case the complainant lodged a

(2.) COMPLAINT on 13th December, 2010 regarding missing of his daughter since 21st November, 2010. He raised suspension upon the accused who is a tantrik. FIR No. 355/2010 was registered under Section 363 IPC against he accused. The appellant was apprehended at Dhaula Kaun, Delhi. It was alleged that the appellant being a distant relative of complainant had gone to her house to attend last rites of the mother of the complainant. He also accompanied the family of the complainant including the prosecutrix to Garh Ganga where prosecutrix felt pain in her leg. Accused stated that she was having some bad influences and is to be treated. Thereafter, all of them came back to Delhi and accused took prosecutrix to Rohtak where she was kept for 20 days. On 21 st November, 2010 appellant made a call to complainant's house and called prosecutrix at Sai Baba Mandir, Najafgarh for her treatment. He took her to Bahadurgarh in the motorcycle of one Chet Ram and kept her there and gave some intoxicating substance in tea and thereafter committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he took her to various places and finally on coming to know that police is searching for them, he brought prosecutrix to Rewari where he requested one Pyare Lal to give him space. On his refusal, he took prosecutrix to Delhi where he was apprehended.

(3.) ON the contrary, it was submitted by learned APP for the State that all the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner were considered by the Trial Court, and thereafter, the appellant was convicted. She further stated that medical and scientific evidence did not support the prosecution case as prosecutrix was missing since 21st November, 2010 and she was recovered only on 3rd December, 2010. That being so, semen could not be detected, however, keeping in view the seriousness of the offence appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence. Keeping in view the fact that as per nominal roll dated 13 th