The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order by the Rajasthan High Court that suspended the 20-year prison sentence of a man convicted for the rape of a minor. A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that the High Court’s reasoning was “conjectural in nature” and fell “far short of the parameters required” for suspending a sentence in such a heinous offence, especially considering the convict’s criminal antecedents.
The apex court directed the convict, who had been released on bail, to surrender back into custody.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a judgment by the Special Judge (POCSO), Karauli, Rajasthan, dated February 7, 2024. The trial court found the accused (Respondent No. 2) guilty of offences under Section 3/4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 for the POCSO offence.
The conviction was based on the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-3), a minor aged 14 years and 3 months at the time of the incident on June 13, 2023. She deposed that the accused came from behind while she was in a field, and at gunpoint, took her to a nearby house where he committed rape. Her testimony was supported by her mother (PW-2) and father (PW-4). The trial court established her age based on school records and a birth certificate, confirming she was a “child” under the POCSO Act.
The trial court noted that while the initial medical examination found no external injuries and the FSL/DNA reports were not available at the conclusion of the trial, the absence of this corroborative evidence did not adversely affect the prosecution’s case. The court invoked the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act against the accused.
After serving 1 year and 3 months of his sentence, the convict’s sentence was suspended by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, on September 3, 2024, and he was released on bail. The victim’s father, Jamnalal, challenged this suspension order before the Supreme Court.
High Court’s Reasoning for Suspension
The Supreme Court judgment quoted the High Court’s entire reasoning for suspending the sentence:
“5. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and counsel for the complainant and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record and especially the fact that no sign of sexual assault was found by the medical expert on the body of the prosecutrix; no FSL as well as DNA report is available on record; despite the availability of washrooms in the house, it is little difficult to digest that prosecutrix will go out for toilet; there is no prospect of being heard and disposal of this appeal in near future, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has available to him strong grounds to assail the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Thus, it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the applicant-appellant during pendency of the instant appeal.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s approach. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing the judgment, stated that an appellate court considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) must examine if there is “something palpable” on record to suggest the convict has a fair chance of acquittal.
The Court cited its decision in Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another (2023), reiterating the principle that once an accused is convicted, the presumption of innocence is erased. The judgment noted, “The appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.”
The bench found the High Court’s reasoning flawed on several grounds:
- The finding that “no sexual assault was found” was “completely untenable” as it ignored the overall nature of the evidence, particularly the victim’s direct testimony.
- The medical evidence only stated that “no conclusive opinion about the crime could be given” pending the FSL report, which does not mean the ocular evidence could be ignored.
- The reasoning that it was “difficult to believe that the prosecutrix could go out for the toilet” despite having a washroom at home was deemed “conjectural in nature.”
The Court also took into account the criminal antecedents of the convict, as submitted by the State of Rajasthan. A chart revealed 11 cases against him, of which 6 are still pending.
Addressing the convict’s argument that there was no post-bail misconduct, the Court drew a clear line between cancellation of bail and setting aside a bail order. Citing Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2014), the Court explained that setting aside bail pertains to the “justifiability and soundness of the order granting bail,” not subsequent conduct.
The Court also noted the State’s submission that the FSL report, received after the trial, confirmed the presence of the accused’s DNA on the victim. However, the bench clarified it was not commenting on the merits of this report.
Referencing Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others (2002), the Court stated that the principles for considering bail in serious offences like murder—such as the nature of the accusation, manner of the crime, and gravity of the offence—apply with “equal force to a case of the present nature under the POCSO Act.”
Decision
Concluding that the High Court was not justified in suspending the sentence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order of September 3, 2024.
The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to “surrender before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO) Karauli, (Rajasthan), on or before 30th August 2025,” failing which the State was instructed to take him into custody.
