PARMENDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentence and perused the judgment impugned dtd. 2/7/2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, 2005, No.2, Ajmer whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 343, 376 IPC and Sec. 3/4 POCSO Act and has been sentenced to maximum ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000.00.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident has not happened as alleged in the statement recorded during the trial. There are several flaws in the case of the prosecutrix which casts serious doubt over the genuineness and truthfulness of the allegations. He further submits that a bare perusal of the statement of prosecutrix would reveal that she was all over a consenting party and she made the elopement at her own accord. It is submitted that during investigation when she was examined under Ss. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has not made any allegations regarding ravishing her but when she was examined in the trial as PW-3, she made material improvement. She has admitted in cross-examination that the fact regarding subjecting her to rape was never disclosed by her to any and such allegations were first time made in the trial when she was examined. Reliance has been placed on testimony of PWs 18 and 19, the two friends of the prosecutrix who stated that the prosecutrix was not happy with the treatment given by her parents and therefore she joined the company of the appellant. It is asserted that the date of birth shown by the prosecutrix is not a sacrosanct piece of evidence. The oral evidence given by her mother puts a dent in the credibility of document. PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix admits in her cross-examination that she was married twenty years ago and begotten a child in the year 1998 and after two years of delivery, the prosecutrix was born. In this view of the matter, learned counsel submits that if the statement of the prosecutrix is relied upon, she was more than 18 years at the relevant point of time. He places reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu alias Undrya versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2006 SC 508 and pleaded that there is contradiction between the statement of prosecutrix and the statement of her parents, therefore statement of the parents shall be given primacy.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant.