MAULANA ABDUL KUDDUS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred in pending appeal which was admitted on 7/10/2023 and aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dtd. 21/9/2023 in Sesions Case No. 95/2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act cases) No. 1, Jaipur Metro-II whereby appellant was convicted for offence under Ss. 9(F)/10, 9(M)/10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of five years along with fine.

(2.) Learned Counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that instant case is false and fabricated case and appellant was falsely implicated. He also submitted that the report was registered after a delay wherein the allegation of touching and kissing victim were mentioned. He also submitted that victim was examined as PW-2 and whereas parents of victim were examined as PW-1 and PW-3 but the statements clearly show that the discrepancies and contradictions were enough to discredit the evidence of these witnesses. He specifically referred Ex. D/1 to submit that first statement of victim clearly indicated that except kissing on hand, no allegations were made against the petitioner but later on under the influence of other people the victim has improved her statement. He specifically referred Ex. D/4 to submit that even victim refused for medical. Learned Counsel submitted that father of victim turned hostile and no other person has supported the version of prosecution. He specifically referred that the age of victim was not proved from any evidence. He specifically referred the age of victim was not proved from any evidence. He specifically referred the statement of PW-11 Ram Avtar Singh Thakar and PW-7 Bhawna to submit that Ex.D/1 was recorded by PW-7 whereas PW-11 admitted that Madrasa is open place and everyone can visit Madrasa. He further submitted that the statement of family members were recorded and except family members no other independent witness was recorded by PW-11 during investigation. He also submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificate and same is taken on record. He also informed that complainant was informed about instant appeal and same is taken on record.