Munna Kathat @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

This application has been filed by accused-appellant Munna Kathat for suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that as per the prosecution, 10th October, 1996 was entered as the date of birth of

prosecutrix in scholar register (Ex.P13), whereas if column no.10 of the scholar register is analysed, it becomes evident that she was admitted to the

school in second standard and not in first standard. The Headmaster of the concerned school was not examined to substantiate this fact. Gheesu

(PW2), the father of prosecutrix has not stated anything specifically with regard to date of birth of the prosecutrix inasmuch as he has also not stated

that he was the one who took her daughter to the school concerned. Learned counsel in support of this argument relied on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Alamelu & Another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2011) 2 SCC 385, Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Another, (2008) 13 SCC 133 and this Court in Raju @ Rajkumar Gaudh Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP 2017 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1521.

Learned counsel submits that the statement of prosecutrix recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and the Court statement are contradictory to each other inasmuch

as she was confronted with her police statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C., where the incident, according to her, had taken place in a different way. In the

Court statement, she sought to make improvements by making addition of two more persons. In all these statements, she has admitted that initially she

went with accused-appellant on motorcycle to Dabi and from there to Bundi and thereafter by bus from Bundi to Jaipur; then from Jaipur to Gujarat in

village Khakra Bela; thereafter to village Paliyat; then they came to Someshwar; thereafter to Ahmedabad and returned back to Marwar Junction and

thereafter finally she came to Beawar. The photographs showing them together have also been exhibited. In support of this argument, learned counsel

relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130, Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs. State of

M.P.-AIR 2013 SC 553 and Tameezuddin alias Tammu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566. It is argued that learned trial court even

otherwise has committed grave error in awarding extreme penalty of life imprisonment even though minimum sentence both for the offence under

Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376 (2) (i) (n) IPC is ten years. Appellant is in jail for last last

four years and trial of the case may take long.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-appellant does not deserve the indulgence of suspension of

sentence and his application be therefore dismissed.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to suspend the

sentence awarded to the accused-appellant till disposal of the appeal.

It is therefore ordered that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the accused appellant Munna Kathat S/o Roshan in Sessions Case

No.24/2016 (183/2014) shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this Court on 10.09.2018 and

whenever called upon to do so.

Accordingly the application for suspension of sentence is disposed off.