Suspension of Sentence in POCSO Act Case Overturned by Supreme Court.


21 April 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law   |   POCSO >> Criminal Law  

This Supreme Court judgment addresses an appeal filed by the mother of a minor who was a victim of sexual assault. The accused (Respondent No. 2) was convicted by the Trial Court under various sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act, receiving a 20-year rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO Act offense.

The High Court, in a criminal miscellaneous application, suspended the sentence pending the accused's appeal, citing doubts about the victim's age due to the witness presenting the age-related documents lacking personal knowledge. The High Court also imposed conditions on the accused's release on bail.


 

 

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the arguments presented, limited its analysis to the legality of the High Court's decision under Section 389 of the CrPC regarding the suspension of sentence. The Court reiterated that suspension of sentence merely stays the execution, while the conviction remains until overturned. It emphasized that reasons for suspension must be recorded after due consideration.

The Supreme Court cited precedents highlighting that while there's no narrow interpretation of Section 389(1) CrPC in cases with irreversible consequences, a stay on conviction is an exception, especially when societal interest is involved.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning for suspending the sentence. It stated that casting doubt on the Trial Court's finding of the victim being a minor, especially when this finding is the basis of the conviction, is not justified under Section 389 CrPC. The Court held that until the High Court independently examines and potentially overturns the Trial Court's finding in the pending appeal, the conviction stands. Considering the nature of the offense and the circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicious use of the power to suspend sentences and to consider legitimate public aspirations, which in this case favored the accused's confinement. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court's order of suspension of sentence, and directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender immediately. However, it clarified that if the High Court appeal is not heard within eighteen months, the accused can seek regular bail from the High Court. The observations made were specifically limited to the correctness of the suspension of sentence order.


Section 389., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012