The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to suspend the sentence of a convict under POCSO, IPC, and SC/ST Act offences. The top court found that the High Court failed to apply settled legal principles while considering the plea for suspension of a fixed-term sentence and directed fresh consideration of the matter within 15 days.
Background:
The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Meerut in POCSO Case No. 270/2016. He was found guilty under:
- Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
- Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code,
- Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
He was sentenced to:
- 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 354 IPC with a fine of ₹3,000,
- 4 years RI under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act with a fine of ₹4,000,
- 4 years RI under the SC/ST Act with a fine of ₹5,000.
The trial court directed that all sentences would run concurrently.
High Court Order:
Aasif filed Criminal Appeal No. 8689/2024 before the Allahabad High Court and sought suspension of the sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the High Court rejected his application on 29 May 2025. It reasoned:
“…this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail during the pendency of present appeal…”
The High Court emphasized the gravity and immoral nature of the offences and concluded that the objections raised by the AGA were not effectively rebutted.
Supreme Court Analysis:
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan expressed strong dissatisfaction with the High Court’s reasoning. The judgment stated:
“This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad… with which we are disappointed.”
The Court highlighted that the sentence awarded was for a fixed term of four years and emphasized the principle laid down in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421:
“…when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence should be considered… liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.”
The Court held that if an appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, refusal to suspend the sentence renders the appeal infructuous, amounting to a “travesty of justice.”
Quoting Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC 123, the Court reiterated that the appellate court must not reappreciate evidence at the suspension stage and must avoid general reiteration of prosecution evidence.
It further noted:
“The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that the appeal is of the year 2024… Ultimately, if 4 years are to elapse in jail the same would render the appeal infructuous…”
Final Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration:
“The High Court shall re-hear the application filed by the appellant – herein afresh at the earliest and pass an appropriate order within 15 days from today.”
The bench further expressed concern:
“We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of High Court and only because the well-settled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly.”
Matter remanded to Allahabad High Court for re-hearing on the suspension of sentence plea.
