Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Megha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 July, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:31758]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 242/2025
Megha Ram S/o Shri Suja Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Fusaniya Bheelo Ki Dhani, Manasar, Falsund Police Station
Jaisalmer, Dist. Jaisalmer. (Confined In District Jail, Jaisalmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 17/07/2025
Pronounced on 23/07/2025
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
preferred by the appellant- Megha Ram seeking suspension of his
sentences recorded by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act
Cases, Jaisalmer in Case No.16/2019, whereby the appellant was
convicted and sentenced as below:
Offence Sentence In default of
payment of fine
366-A IPC 7 years of Rigorous In default of payment
Imprisonment and Rs. of the fine, to further
7000/- fine undergo 2 months of
Simple Imprisonment
376(2)(i) IPC 10 years of Rigorous In default of payment
Imprisonment and Rs. of the fine, to further
10,000/- fine undergo 3 months of
Simple Imprisonment
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31758] (2 of 3) [SOSA-242/2025]
2. Brief facts of the case are that this case originated from a
complaint filed on 08.12.2014, alleging the sexual assault of a
seven-year-old minor by one Megha Ram. The victim, a Class I
student, was purportedly attacked behind school premises during
lunch break, sustaining injuries to her mouth, nose, eye, and
private parts, with an attempted sexual assault. The accused fled
upon the cries of another child, attracting bystanders.
2.1. An FIR No. 66/2014 was registered under Section 366 IPC
and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. Following investigation, a charge
sheet was filed under Sections 366-A, 376/511 IPC, and Sections
3/4 POCSO Act.
2.2. The trial court altered the charges mentioned hereinbefore to
Sections 366-A, 376(2)(i) IPC, and 5[M]/6 POCSO Act, based on
evidence, and the appellant was convicted under these altered
charges and sentenced accordingly by judgment dated
12.07.2021.
3. Mr. J.V.S. Deora, learned counsel appearing for the accused-
appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated
due to an existing land dispute between the families, and pointed
out alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. He
further urged that the appellant has already undergone a
significant period of incarceration, 7 years, 2 months, and 27
days, including the period spent in custody during trial–and that
the appeal may not be heard in the near future.
3.1. Per Contra, Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the offence is of a grave and heinous
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31758] (3 of 3) [SOSA-242/2025]
nature, involving the sexual assault of a minor child barely seven
years of age, and that the conviction is based on trustworthy
medical and ocular evidence, which was carefully assessed by the
trial court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
5. This Court finds that although the appellant has undergone a
considerable duration of custody, the seriousness of the offence,
the age of the victim, and the nature of the act alleged, an
attempted penetrative sexual assault on a minor schoolgirl, do not
justify the grant of indulgence at this stage.
6. This Court further finds that the trial court has recorded a
detailed finding of guilt on the basis of credible evidence. The
gravity of the offence and its deep impact on the victim and
society at large, particularly in the context of the legislative intent
behind the POCSO Act, weigh against the suspension of sentence
in light of the factual matrix of the present case.
7. Thus, this Court is not inclined to suspended the sentence
awarded to the applicant-appellant at this stage.
8. Consequently, the present application for suspension of
sentence is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
Skant/-
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:49:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)