***

1. The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.

2. By way of filing the present application (first), applicant-appellant No.3/Suraj Verma has prayed for suspension of remaining sentence of 20 years, awarded to him in FIR No.83 dated 01.06.2015 under Section 376-D/377 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station. Model Town, Ludhiana.

3. The present case was registered against the applicant-appellant/ Suraj Verma and co-accused on the complaint moved by prosecutrix that the applicant-appellant along with co-accused had committed rape upon her. During investigation of the case, all the accused were arrested and challan was presented against them. The accused-appellant along with co-accused was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 376-D IPC and they were convicted vide judgment dated 19.11.2015 and sentenced vide order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is proved on record that the prosecutrix was 18 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. The case is based upon solitary and uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, four DWs were examined, supporting the defence version, but their testimonies have been ignored by the trial court. As per the defence version, the applicant alongwith co-accused Deepa was serving with Devinder Kumar (brother of prosecutrix), who had dispute with them on account of paying the wages and at the instance of Devinder Kumar, the applicant and co-accused have been falsely implicated.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the MLR of prosecutrix, coupled with the testimony of Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal, it is evident that there was no redness or swelling on the private parts of the prosecutrix and no sign of carnal intercourse. He also submits that the appellant is in custody since 19.11.2015, as such, has already undergone 5 years, 4 months and 21 days, out of total sentence of 20 years.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant keeping in view the nature and gravity of the crime committed and prays for dismissal of the present application. However, period of undergone is not disputed in view of custody certificate dated 27.10.2020.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Apart from raising various contentions on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the present applicant-appellant has already undergone more than 5 years and 4 months of his actual sentence, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. There are many debatable points in the present appeal and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation.

9. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly the fact that appeal is already admitted, disposal whereof is likely to take time, the present application is allowed and remaining sentence of applicant-appellant No.3/Suraj Verma is suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Application allowed.

********