ROHIT BAIRWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having regard to the sensitivity of the allegations levelled in the matter and the nature of the offence complained of, it is imperative to protect the identity of the prosecutrix. Therefore, she has been denoted as "A" in the incident.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that though in the Examination-in-Chief, the victim PW-1 "A" has levelled allegation of rape against the appellant, but when she was cross-examined, she denied the allegations of rape against the appellant. Counsel submits that even parents of the victim i.e. PW-2 Ramavtar and PW-3 Gayatri have not supported the allegation of sexual assault against the appellant. Counsel submits that only on the basis of DNA report, the appellant has been convicted. Counsel submits that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of DNA report. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 255/2022) decided on 18/7/2023. Counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest and disposal of the appeal is bound to take time, therefore, the sentence of the appellant be suspended till disposal of the appeal.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the Counsel for the complainant opposed the suspension of sentence application.