OTARAM S/O SH. NATHURAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentence Application No.1218/2019.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the offences, he was charged. It is argued that on 14.03.2019 PW-1 "P" has lodged a written report at Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali, wherein it is only alleged that the appellant came to her house when she was alone and assaulted her and also took her away in a room. It is submitted that in the said complaint, no allegation of sexual assault was levelled by the prosecutrix PW-1 "P", however, on 16.03.2019, she again filed a written report wherein for the first time allegation of sexual assault was levelled. It is submitted that from the evidence of PW-1 "P", it can be gathered that after the alleged incident of sexual assault on 14.03.2019, she went to the school and not complained to anybody about the alleged incident of sexual assault. It is submitted that such a behaviour of a victim is unbelievable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards the statements of mother of the prosecutrix PW-2 and argued that from the perusal of her evidence, it is clear that initially the allegation of sexual assault was not levelled against the accused- appellant but the same has been levelled after two days. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of this Court towards statements of PW-3 father of the prosecutrix who did not support the prosecution story and has simply stated that initially the compliant was lodged only regarding physical assault of his daughter and he has also admitted that accused appellant had seen the prosecutrix in the company of one Shanker Dewasi and has also asked her that he will complained to her parents. It is submitted that PW-14 Dr. Sunita in her evidence has specifically stated that forceful sexual assault has not been committed upon the prosecutrix. It is submitted that from the above evidence, it is clear that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application of the suspension of sentence and argued that age of the prosecutrix is less than fifteen years on the day of incident and in her court statements, she has specifically alleged that on 14.03.2019 accused appellant had sexually assaulted her. It is submitted that the said peace of evidence is enough to prove the guilt of the accused appellant, therefore, sentence awarded to him by the trial court be not suspended. Heard learned counsel for the parties.