The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court that stayed the conviction of an accused in a POCSO case solely on the ground that his sentence had been suspended. The Apex Court reiterated that the parameters for suspending a sentence and staying a conviction are distinct, holding that a stay on conviction should only be granted in exceptional cases.
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a High Court can stay a conviction merely because the sentence of the accused has been suspended. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, clarifying that the parameters for these two reliefs are “totally different.” Consequently, the Apex Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated July 10, 2024, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The High Court had granted a stay on the conviction of Respondent No. 2 (the accused).
Prior to this, the accused had been convicted by the Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Jaipur, vide an order dated February 23, 2023. The conviction was recorded for offences punishable under:
- Sections 305 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
- Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
- Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
High Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the Rajasthan High Court had granted the stay of conviction based on a single premise. The High Court reasoned that since the application for suspension of sentence had already been allowed by the Court vide an order dated April 19, 2023, the application for a stay of conviction also deserved to be allowed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran scrutinized the High Court’s rationale and found it legally unsustainable. The Judges observed that the High Court “failed to apply its mind to the facts of the present case.”
Key observations made by the Bench include:
1. Distinct Parameters for Sentence Suspension and Stay of Conviction Justice Gavai and Justice Chandran clarified the legal distinction between the two reliefs. The Court stated:
“It is more than a settled law that the parameter for consideration while suspending the sentence and the parameter for staying the conviction are totally different.”
2. Requirement of an “Exceptional Case” Emphasizing the stringent standards required for staying a conviction, the Bench observed:
“Unless an exceptional case is made out, the courts are not supposed to grant a stay of conviction.”
3. Lack of Reasoning by the High Court The Apex Court criticized the lack of specific reasons in the impugned order regarding why the conviction should be stayed. The Court noted:
“No reasons have been recorded as to how the case of respondent No.2 is exceptional or amounts to the ‘rarest of the rare’, warranting a stay of conviction.”
Decision
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The matter was remitted back to the Rajasthan High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of establishing an exceptional case for a stay of conviction.
Case Details
- Case Title: Victim Father v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14790 of 2024)
- Coram: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Jayprakash Bansilal Somani, Mr. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Mr. Jeevan Patil, Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Ms. Shruti Kriti, and Ms. Shisba Chawla (AOR).
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma (A.A.G.), Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal (AOR), Mr. Puneet Parihar, Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, and M/s Unuc Legal LLP (AOR).
