AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Accused-applicant Akshay Singh @ Monu S/o Shri Surendra Singh has preferred this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No
05/2018 titled as State Vs. Akshay Singh @ Monu.
It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no reliable evidence on record. Medical and
FSL do not corroborate the prosecution's story. The victim has entered into compromise with a juvenile in conflict with law (Gagan), which has been
placed on record as Exhibit P-2/A and P-3/A. Accused-appellant has not been identified during the course of investigation. He has been involved only
on the basis of statement of Investigating Officer. He has suffered sentence of two years and eight months. Decision of the case will take time.
Hence, he may be released on bail during pendency of the appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and it has been argued that prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt and appeal is liable to be dismissed. Prosecution has proved the guilt of accused- applicant before the learned Court below.
The judgment of learned trial court is just and proper and learned trial court has arrived at conclusion and convicted and sentenced accused-applicant
accordingly. It has also been argued that looking to the gravity of the offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail during pendency of appeal. He
has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
Present accused-applicant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 376-2(I) and Section 5 (G)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been
sentenced to maximum ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Heard on application for suspension of sentence and perused the record of the case and evidence available on record, including the statement of the
victim. The victim was of 13 years of age at the time of commission of offence and as per charge she has been subjected to gang rap. It is not just
and proper to discuss in detail the merits of the evidence produced during the course of trial but looking to overall facts and circumstances, gravity of
the offence, this Court does not find it just and expedient to allow the application for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is dismissed.