HC While Hearing Application U/S.389 Of CrPC For Suspension Of Sentence Expected To Examine Whether Accused Has Fair Chance Of Overturning Conviction: Supreme Court

The Appeal filed by the father of the prosecutrix challenged the order of the Rajasthan High Court suspending the sentence imposed on the respondent-convict till the final disposal of the appeal and releasing him on bail, subject to certain conditions imposed on him by Special Judge (POCSO) Karauli (Rajasthan).

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K. V. Viswanathan held, “One would have expected the High Court hearing an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence to examine whether prima facie there was anything palpable on the record to indicate if the accused had a fair chance of overturning the conviction.”

AOR K. L. Janjani represented the Appellant while AAG Sansriti Pathak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Respondent accused had been found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3 and 4 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) as well as under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the evidence of the prosecutrix, he, at gunpoint, closed her mouth and forcibly took her to a house and committed rape on her. He was sentenced under Section 3 and 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, and no sentence was imposed under Section 376(3) in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. Insofar as Section 3(2) was concerned, he was sentenced to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000. In default of payment of fine, the second Respondent was directed to undergo an additional 2 years' rigorous imprisonment. He had undergone imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months, after which his sentence was suspended by the High Court.

Reasoning

Taking into account the fact that the High Court had not adverted to any of the relevant factors for considering the case for suspension under Section 389 and keeping in mind the antecedents, the Bench was of the opinion that High Court was not justified in suspending the sentence.

“The reasoning of the High Court, set out above, falls far short of the parameters required under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for enlargement of a convict, punished for heinous offence, on bail after suspending the sentence. The finding that no sexual assault was found, without considering the overall nature of the evidence of the case, is completely untenable”, it said.

The Bench also noticed that the medical evidence reflected that no conclusive opinion about the crime could be given since the FSL Report was awaited. This did not mean that the ocular evidence could be ignored. Regarding the non-availability of the FSL Report, it was noted that the prosecution had explained the situation, and the Trial Court also found that the non-availability of the DNA Report did not adversely affect the prosecution's case. The reasoning that, despite the availability of washrooms in the house, it was difficult to believe that the prosecutrix could go out for the toilet was conjectural in nature.

Thus, setting aside the order of the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal. “Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender before the Court of Special Judge (POCSO) Karauli, (Rajasthan), on or before 30th August 2025, failing which, the State shall take Respondent No.2 into custody”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan And Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 935)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR K. L. Janjani

Respondent: AAG Sansriti Pathak, Advocates Shagufa Khan, Aman Prasad, AOR Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Namit Saxena

Click here to read/download Order