- (1.) The instant application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused-appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. praying therein to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of the victim appears to be tainted, colored and sketchy, it cannot be used for conviction of the accused-appellant. The testimony of victim suffers from infirmity in a manner so as to make it either unsafe or impossible to base a finding of guilt. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged incident took place on 07.08.2017 at Alwar but after about one and a half month, the report was lodged on 11.09.2017 at Bilaspur. The omission to make a disclosure at the earliest opportunity tending to show that the testimony of victim suffers from infirmities. The trial Court ignored the fact that the victim has stated in her statement that after the incident she went to Bilaspur on 04.09.2017 but as per the Attendance Register of the victim's college (Ex.D1), victim was present at her college which is situated at Jaipur on 04.09.2017 to 11.09.2017 and also on 16.09.2017. The Investigating Officer Mr. Shishram Meena (PW- 30) in his statement admitted that as per the Attendance Register, victim was present at her college situated at Jaipur from 04.09.2017 to 11.09.2017 and also on 16.09.2017. Learned counsel submitted that on the next day of the alleged incident Mr. Amit Shukla (PW-23) and Mr. Durga Prasad (PW-24) dropped the victim at railway station. There is an enmity between the appellant and the father of victim Mr. Nand Bhan Singh on the issue of personal use of "Pendra Trust Property" which was denied by the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that the victim is aged about 22 years and a Fourth Year Law Student. The FIR was lodged after more than one month of the incident at Bilaspur. After the incident, the victim talked to appellant on 15.08.2017. Not only this, father of victim Mr. Nand Bhan Singh (PW-7) talked to appellant but did not make any complaint with regard to the alleged incident. The aforesaid circumstances showing on the part of prosecutrix an animus against the appellant.
(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Takht Singh and Ors. Versus State of M.P. reported in (2001)10 SCC 463; 2. Kashmira Singh versus The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 2147; 3. M. Radha Hariseshu versus The State of Telangana reported in JT 2020 (8) SC; 4. Babu Singh and Ors. Versus The State of U.P., 1978 Cri.LJ 651; 5. Prahladbhai Jagabhai Patel and Anr. Versus The State of Gujarat, (2020) 3 SCC 341; 6. Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat versus The State of Maharashtra, 2005 Cri.LJ 880; 7. Criminal Appeal No.283/2011, Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni versus The State of Punjab, decided on 28.07.2020 and; 8. Tomaso Bruno and Anr. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178.;