PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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 by the appellant-applicant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 & Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 vide judgment dtd. 28/11/2019 in Sessions Case No.1/2018. The appellant-applicant has been sentenced as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_253_LAWS(RAJ)2_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submitted that the learned trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment dtd. 28/11/2019. It is argued that no direct evidence is produced by the prosecution and the conviction of the appellant-applicant is based solely of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is not cogent and reliable and the learned trial court has grossly erred in relying on the same. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial court has also erred in drawing presumption against the appellant-applicant. It is also submitted that the appellantapplicant is in jail around more than eight years and the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant may be suspended.