No Proof Of Monetary Consideration: Rajasthan High Court Suspends Sentence Of Men Accused Of Selling Minors
The Court found substantial arguable grounds requiring closer examination in appeal, but clarified that it was expressing no final opinion on the convictions.
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has suspended the 20-year sentences of two accused convicted in a POCSO case after finding that the victim’s testimony and the absence of evidence proving any payment or receipt of money raised substantial questions about the prosecution’s allegation that she had been sold for monetary consideration.
The Court was hearing applications under Section 389 CrPC, corresponding to Section 430 BNSS, seeking suspension of the sentences imposed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No. 1, Udaipur, pending adjudication of the appellants’ criminal appeals.
A Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed: “The testimony of PW-5 assumes considerable significance in determining the culpability of the appellants, as her deposition bears directly upon the foundational circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution. Her categorical admission that she was unaware of whether she had been sold in consideration of any monetary amount casts a serious shadow upon the prosecution's theory concerning the alleged transaction. Such an admission cannot be brushed aside as an inconsequential omission, particularly when the allegation of payment or receipt of money constitutes a material circumstance in the prosecution's narrative.”
The Court added: “Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to produce cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence demonstrating the actual giving or receipt of any monetary consideration in connection with the alleged transaction. In the absence of convincing evidence on this material aspect, the allegation that the victim was sold for a monetary consideration remains insufficiently substantiated. A conviction cannot be founded upon conjectures, presumptions or circumstances which fall short of the requisite standard of proof.”
Advocate J.V.S. Deora appeared for the appellants. Deputy Government Advocate Narendra Gehlot appeared for the respondents.
Background
The Special POCSO Court convicted the appellants under Sections 6/17 and 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and imposed a maximum sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1 lakh. It also imposed lesser punishments for offences under Sections 143(4) and 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The appellants submitted that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence. They also pointed out that they had remained on bail during the trial without misusing their liberty and that the appeals were unlikely to be decided early.
The State opposed the applications for suspension of sentence.
Court’s Observations
Substantial Arguable Case Can Justify Suspension Of Sentence
The Court distinguished pre-conviction bail from suspension of sentence after conviction. It observed that although conviction displaced the presumption of innocence, the appellate court was required to determine whether the grounds raised disclosed a substantial and arguable case.
The Court held: “If the material on record suggests that the findings of the trial court may be debatable, the discretion under Section 389 CrPC (corresponding to Section 430 BNSS) can be justifiably invoked. Where the appeal raises issues which, on prima facie consideration, indicate a reasonable possibility of success, including reversal or modification of conviction, the sentence may be suspended pending adjudication.”
The Court referred to Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha (2026), concerning prolonged pendency of criminal appeals as a ground for suspension, and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977), concerning continued incarceration during a delayed appeal.
The Bench clarified that conclusive findings on the appeal’s merits were unnecessary and could prejudice its final adjudication. Only a prima facie assessment of the substance and arguability of the grounds was required.
Minority And Marriage Did Not Prove Every Charged Offence
The Court noted that the prosecution material indicated that the victim was below 18 years of age and had married one of the appellants. However, it held that those circumstances did not dispense with the prosecution’s obligation to prove every ingredient of the substantive offences charged.
The Bench observed: “The factum of her minority is undoubtedly a circumstance of legal significance; nevertheless, its legal consequences must be assessed in the context of the precise allegations levelled, the statutory provisions invoked and the evidence adduced to establish the commission of the offences charged. The mere existence of a marriage involving a minor, without more, cannot automatically dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove each essential ingredient of the substantive criminal offences alleged against the appellants.”
The Court found that the appellants’ contention that the case might not travel beyond a contravention of the statutory provisions concerning child marriage required serious consideration. It emphasised the need to distinguish the legal consequences of a marriage involving a minor from the proof of separate criminal offences allegedly committed in connection with it.
Victim’s Willingness Could Not Override Statutory Protection
The Court observed that the victim’s consent, her understanding of the marriage and the circumstances in which it was solemnised required examination. At the same time, it clarified that apparent willingness or absence of an express objection could not override statutory protection available to a minor.
The Bench stated that those surrounding circumstances nevertheless remained relevant to determining the actual nature of the alleged transaction and the culpability attributed to each appellant.
The Court also considered the prosecution’s account concerning the relationship between the victim’s biological mother and one of the appellants. It held that the relationship and the parties’ conduct could provide contextual background but could not, by themselves, conclusively prove either guilt or innocence.
Evidence Raised Substantial Questions For Appeal
The Court observed that the victim’s testimony, the absence of satisfactory proof of monetary consideration, the circumstances surrounding the marriage and the relationship between the persons concerned required comprehensive examination in the appeals.
The Bench held: “The deficiencies in the prosecution evidence, particularly with regard to the alleged monetary consideration, the testimony of PW-5 and the circumstances surrounding the solemnization of the marriage, cannot be overlooked while considering the present application. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the appeals, this Court finds that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.”
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court allowed both applications and suspended the appellants’ sentences until final disposal of their criminal appeals.
The Court directed their release on bail upon each appellant furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹25,000 each to the trial court’s satisfaction.
The appellants must appear before the trial court every January until the appeals are decided and notify the trial court and their High Court counsel of any change in residence. Their sureties must similarly report any address change. Non-appearance must be reported to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
Cause Title: Shrawan Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Another with Mangunath v. State of Rajasthan and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:51515)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates J.V.S. Deora and R.S. Rawal
Respondents: Deputy Government Advocate Narendra Gehlot; Advocate Rajendra Charan