State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor v. For

: Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 12/08/2025 Order

1. The accused-applicant has moved the second suspension of sentence application under Section 430 BNSS against the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act, 2012, No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.9/2019, whereby the accused-applicant was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 363 of IPC:- One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000/- in default of payment of fine further 15 days simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:31543] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1446/2025] Under Section 366-A of IPC:- Four Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further one month’s simple imprisonment. Under Section 5/6 POCSO ACT:- Twenty Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine further one month’s simple imprisonment.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the applicant has suffered almost 7 years and 3 months in Jail and the appeal was filed in the year 2023. The appeal of the accused-applicant is not likely to be taken up shortly. The accused-applicant has been sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. It is also contended that though the earlier accused- applicant’s suspension of sentence application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2024, however, thereafter the accused-applicant underwent further custody of almost one year and seven months and the matter was not heard and there is no likelihood that the matter shall be heard finally. It is also contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aasif @ Pasa Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.3409/2025) at para 15 held that “but if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits, more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases.” The Apex Court also held in para 17 that “when the Appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons, such [2025:RJ-JP:31543] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1446/2025] appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, the Appellate Court must show special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. At the same time, the appellate courts can impose similar conditions when the appeal is granted. The Apex Court also held that the High Court should have been mindful of the fact that appeal is old and not likely to be taken up in near future and if the entire period of imprisonment are elapsed in Jail then same would rendered the appeal infructuous and amount to travisity of justice, therefore, in the light of above judgment, the accused-applicant’s second suspension of sentence application may be allowed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second suspension of sentence application.

5. It is contended that the first suspension of sentence application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Court on

29.01.2024, observing that the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years and the pregnancy report corroborated the version of the offence, and declined to allow the suspension of sentence application to the accused-applicant. The punishment in the aforesaid case is 20 years under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act apart from the other sentence passed under Sections 363 & 366-A of the IPC. The Court has also imposed a fine of Rs 1,00,000/- upon the accused-applicant. It is also contended that if there are any compelling circumstances on the record to indicate that release of the appellant would not have been public interest then the Court may order accordingly. In the present case, the alleged offence against the petitioner is grave and the trial court after minutely scrutinising the evidence collected concluded that the [2025:RJ-JP:31543] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1446/2025] accused-applicant had committed an offence under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The FSL report and the pregnancy report indicate that the prosecutrix got pregnant due to a sexual offence committed against her. The age of the prosecutrix at that time was below 18 years. It is also contended that the Court should consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusation made against the accused, how the crime has been committed, and the gravity of the offence in a case involving a serious offence like murder. The present is a case of the POCSO Act which provides a minimum punishment of 20 years, extended up to imprisonment for life, therefore, considering the nature of the offence and evidence adduced before the trial court regarding culpability of the accused-applicant, the second suspension of sentence application of the accused-applicant, deserves dismissal.

6. Heard and perused the material placed on record along with the law cited by the counsel.

7. This Court, after assigning reasons, dismissed the first suspension of sentence application of the accused-applicant on merits, vide order dated 29.01.2024. In the case of Aasif @ Pasha (supra), a fix term of sentence of 4 years was imposed against the appellant and the Hon’ble Apex Court in that circumstances, held that in a case of fixed term of sentence on an appeal filed by the appellant, the Appellate Court should consider the suspension of sentence application liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. In the case in hand, the exceptional circumstances against the accused-applicant have already been dealt with in the detailed order passed by this Court on 29.01.2024. The facts of the case of Aasif @ Pasha (supra) are entirely different. Under the [2025:RJ-JP:31543] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1446/2025] POCSO Act, the legislature provided harsh punishment. The POCSO Act came into existence on 14th November, 2012. It was enacted to protect children from sexual exploitation.

8. In the present case, it is alleged against the accused- applicant that he committed rape with the prosecutrix who was below 18 years and the prosecutrix became pregnant. The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused-applicant under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

9. Given this Court, the aforesaid circumstances of record, indicate that the release of the appellant, could not be public interest, therefore, the second suspension of sentence application of the accused-applicant, is hereby, dismissed (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav /86 11