SHARAD CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the applicant-appellant seeking suspension of sentence awarded to him by Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') vide its judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.116/2016 (152/2013), whereby the trial court has convicted the applicant- appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 370(4) read with Section 120-B and 376D IPC, however, sentenced him as under:

(2.) As per the prosecution story, the prosecutrix, a 12 th Standard student, who was studying and residing in Asharam Gurukul, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh fell ill in first week of August, 2013. The co-accused Sanchita alias Shilpi, who was working as Warden of the hostel, where the prosecutrix was residing, came to know about the illness of the prosecutrix and thereafter told her that she is under the influence of evil spirits. On 07.08.2013, co-accused Sanchita alias Shilpi informed the family members of the prosecutrix that she is not feeling well, so they should take her to Gurukul at Chhindwara, upon which the parents of the prosecutrix reached Chhindwara on 08.08.2013 and thereafter on 09.08.2013, visited the Girls Hostel, Gurukul, Chhindwara, where the prosecutrix was residing and met the co- accused Shilpi and the applicant-appellant, where they told her parents that the prosecutrix is under the influence of evil spirits and they also informed about her condition to Asharam Bapu, so they should meet him wherever he is. On 09.08.2013 itself, the prosecutrix left the hostel for Shahjahanpur, U.P. with her parents, where they contacted another co-accused - Shiva, who informed them that Asharam would be in Delhi on 12.08.2013, then the prosecutrix along with her parents reached Delhi on 13.08.2013, then they came to know that Asharam is in Jodhpur and when they again called Shiva, he asked them to come to Jodhpur. Thereafter, the prosecutrix along with her family members reached Jodhpur at Manai village, where Asharam was staying in a farm house. The prosecutrix along with her parents stayed there and met with Asharam. On 15.08.2013, the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted by Asharam in a Kutia of farm house. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the family members left Jodhpur and reached Shahjapur, where the prosecutrix narrated entire incident of sexual assault by Asharam to her family members on 19.08.2013. Then the prosecutrix and her family members went to Delhi, where a zero number FIR was lodged at Police Station, Kamla Market, New Delhi and statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 164 CrpC and thereafter, FIR No.122/2013 was registered at Police Station, Mahila West, Jodhpur on 21.08.2013.

(3.) It is argued that the applicant-appellant was appointed as Director of Asharam Gurukul Hostel, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh in January 2013 only vide Ex.P/64 and prior to that, he was not connected with the activities of Gurukul in any manner. It is further argued that no direct evidence is available on record to suggest that the applicant-appellant sent the prosecutrix to the Ashram at Jodhpur where accused - Asharam was staying or he was aware that if the prosecutrix would go to Asharam's place, she would be sexually assaulted by him.