DAULATRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of execution for sentence. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) The applicant-appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Ss. 363, 366, 376(2)(n) & 376(3) of IPC and Ss. 3/4(2) & 5(I)/6 of POCSO Act vide judgment dtd. 6/2/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Child Right Protection Commission 2005, No. 4, Alwar (Raj.) in Session Case No. 77/2023 (CIS No. 77/2023) and has been sentenced to maximum punishment of twenty years.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned above. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right and correct perspective. Learned Counsel further submits that victim, who is aged about 17 years, cannot be considered as trustworthy witness as she has made different statements as different stages of the investigation and trial. Learned Counsel further submits that when victim was examined under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. no allegation of rape was levelled by her and it was simply alleged that she was taken away by the appellant and on other person in truck, but when she was examined in the Court during course of trial, she against changed her version and levelled allegation of commission of rape against the appellant and stated that she was taken away by the appellant and one other person on motorcycle. Learned Counsel further submits that there is no medical corroboration of the allegation levelled by the victim against the appellant. Learned Counsel further submits that she remained in company of the appellant for six days and visited many public places with him and same has been admitted by her in her cross-examination. Learned Counsel further submits that no hues and cries were made by the victim during this period, despite having the opportunity. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail and there is no immediate prospect of hearing and disposal of the appeal in near future.