Mohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan

Applicant-appellant has preferred this third application for suspension of sentence awarded by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (for short,

‘learned trial Court’). The learned trial Court, by its judgment dated 5th of October, 2016 indicted appellant for offence punishable under

Sections 363, 366 & 376(2)(g) IPC and handed down maximum sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for serious offence under Section 376(2)

(g). However, for offence under Section 363, five years sentence and for 366 IPC seven years sentence was handed down besides fine of different

denominations for each offence.

The first application for suspension of sentence was rejected on 1st of September, 2017 followed by second on 26th of July, 2018, as not pressed.

Arguing on this third bail application for suspension of sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that alleged incident relates to

1991, wherein initially FIR was lodged against applicant and others for offence under Section 363, 366 IPC and at the stage of charge the applicant

was discharged but subsequently discharge order was set aside in revision and charge of 376(2)(g) was also slapped. It is also argued by learned

counsel that there is marked improvement in the version of both the prosecutrix during trial as they projected embellished version from their earlier

statements. As per learned counsel this aspect is not examined by the learned trial Court. Mr. Shrimali has further contended that medical evidence

too is not clinching so as to prove the offence of rape inasmuch as there is no mark of external violence on the person of the prosecutrix or concrete

proof about offence. Learned counsel would urge that learned trial Court while indicting applicant for offence of rape has completely overlooked

medical evidence. Learned counsel contends that applicant is in custody since passing of the verdict by the learned trial Court and hearing of the

appeal is not possible in near future. It is also argued by learned counsel that applicant is septuagenarian and therefore his prayer for suspension of

sentence merits favourable consideration.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the application for suspension of sentence. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that

delay in disposal of the case cannot be cited as reason for suspending the sentence. It is further argued by learned Public Prosecutor that applicant is

convicted for serious delinquency and charge of rape is duly proved by the oral as well as medical evidence. He, therefore, urged that plea of the

applicant merits rejection.

I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the indictment of applicant for serious delinquency, I feel dissuaded

to suspend the sentence.

Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, before parting, it may be observed that hearing of the main appeal may be expedited.