Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.389— Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence and grant of bail – Legality of – Heinous offence – Prosecutrix had stated that convict, at gunpoint, closed her mouth and forcibly took her to a house and committed rape on her – Medical evidence only indicated that no conclusive opinion about crime could be given since FSL Report was awaited – Same did not mean that ocular evidence could be ignored – Prosecution had explained non-availability of FSL report and Trial Court had also found that non-availability of DNA Report did not adversely affect case of prosecution – Observation of High Court that no sexual assault was found, without considering the overall nature of the evidence of the case, was untenable – Reasoning of High Court that despite availability of washrooms in the house, it was difficult to believe that prosecutrix would go out for toilet, was conjectural in nature – 11 cases were registered against convict out of which he was acquitted in 5 cases and 6 were pending – A convict, punished for heinous offence was enlarged on bail after suspending sentence by the High Court, without properly considering parameters required u/S. 389 of Cr.P.C.- Order of High Court was set aside.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 852 of 2024 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2024,D/-03-09-2024 (RAJ)-ReversedAIR 2015 SC (Supp) 246-Relied on(Paras12131516)