SHRAWAN NATH vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Court
Rajasthan High Court

[2026:RJ-JD:51515]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1057/2026
CNR: RJHC010569292026 | URN: SOSA / 2298U / 2026
In
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.713/2026
Shrawan Nath S/o Arjun Nath, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Sutharo
Ka Guda, Police Station Sadri, District Pali. Presently- Samal,
Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur. (Presently Confined In
Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, State Of Rajasthan Through Public
Prosecutor.
2. Amarpal Yadav S/o Kumargi Lal, R/o Sajjan Nagar, Kacchi
Basti, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 820/2026
CNR: RJHC010451822026 | URN: SOSA / 1724U / 2026
IN
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.870/2026
Mangunath S/o Laxman Nath, Aged About 51 Years, Chitamba Ps
Kareda District Bhilwara Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In Central
Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Amarpal S/o Shri Kamarlal, Sajjan Nagar Kacchi Basti Ps
Ambamata District Udaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora
Mr. R.S. Rawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, Dy.GA
Mr. Rajendra Charan
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(2 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
14/10/2026
1. The instant applications for suspension of sentence have
been moved on behalf of the applicants in the matter of
judgment dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Special
Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case
No.51/2025 whereby they were convicted and sentenced to
suffer maximum imprisonment of 20 years RI along with a
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sections 6/17 and 5/6 of the
POCSO Act and lesser punishment for the other offences
under Sections 143(4), 144 of the BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the trial court
failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects,
resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt. Being the first
appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence. It is
further submitted that the appellants remained on bail
during trial without misuse of liberty, and as the appeal will
take time for disposal, the sentence deserves to be
suspended.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. The distinction between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC
( corresponding to Section 483 BNSS) and suspension of
sentence under Section 389 CrPC ( corresponding to Section
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(3 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
430 BNSS) is well settled. While the former operates at the
pre-conviction stage, the latter comes into play post-
conviction and requires the appellate court to assess, prima
facie, the sustainability of the conviction and sentence under
challenge.
6. Upon conviction, the presumption of innocence stands
displaced; however, while considering suspension of
sentence, the appellate court is required to evaluate whether
the grounds raised in appeal disclose a substantial and
arguable case. 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.
7. This Court is guided by the enunciation of law by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha
(February 16, 2026) , wherein it has been held that
prolonged pendency of criminal appeals, not attributable to
the convict, constitutes a valid ground for suspension of
sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Kashmira
Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 , wherein the
Supreme Court deprecated continued incarceration of
convicts for long periods during pendency of appeals,
observing that such practice would amount to a travesty of
justice.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(4 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
8. It is equally settled that while considering such application,
the appellate court is not required to record conclusive
findings on merits, as that would prejudice the final
adjudication. A prima facie satisfaction regarding the
arguability and substance of the grounds would suffice. The
appellate jurisdiction being a continuation of trial, the entire
evidence remains open to re-appreciation. The court may
ultimately affirm, modify, or set aside the conviction, or alter
the sentence, depending upon the outcome of such re-
evaluation.
9. Additionally, even where conviction is sustained, the nature
of offence or quantum of sentence may warrant
reconsideration at the appellate stage, which further justifies
a liberal approach in appropriate cases. This Court cannot
lose sight of the fact that it is burdened with a large number
of pending criminal appeals, and the likelihood of their early
disposal remains uncertain. In such circumstances,
continued incarceration, despite arguable grounds in appeal,
would not be justified, particularly when delay is not
attributable to the appellant.
10. This Court has meticulously scrutinized the evidence brought
on record by the prosecution during the course of trial, in the
light of the submissions advanced and the circumstances
emerging therefrom. Upon an overall appreciation of the
material available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence
adduced does not inspire that degree of confidence which is
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(5 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
indispensable for sustaining a finding of guilt in a criminal
trial. The prosecution is required to establish its case on the
touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and any
material deficiency in the evidentiary chain, particularly
where it relates to the essential ingredients of the alleged
offence, must necessarily enure to the benefit of the
accused.
11. 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 evidentiary value of her
testimony, therefore, assumes added importance while
examining whether the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
12. 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
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(6 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
insufficiently substantiated. A conviction cannot be founded
upon conjectures, presumptions or circumstances which fall
short of the requisite standard of proof. The prosecution
must stand or fall upon the strength of its own evidence, and
the deficiencies apparent in the present case cannot be
supplied by speculation or by drawing inferences
unsupported by the material on record.
13. At its highest, the prosecution's case, as reflected in Exhibit
P-12, is that the victim was below eighteen years of age at
the relevant time and was, therefore, a minor, and that she
was married to the appellant, Shrawannath. 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.
14. In this backdrop, the contention advanced on behalf of the
appellants that the prosecution case, even if accepted in its
entirety, may not travel beyond the alleged contravention of
the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act requires
serious consideration. The Court must carefully distinguish
between the legal consequences flowing from a marriage
involving a minor and the commission of any separate
criminal offence alleged to have been perpetrated in
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(7 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
connection therewith. Whether the evidence on record
establishes the ingredients of the offences for which the
appellants have been convicted, or whether the
circumstances disclose, at the highest, a violation of the
applicable statutory provisions relating to child marriage, is a
question that warrants a dispassionate and legally informed
examination. Such an assessment must necessarily be
undertaken with reference to the applicable law and without
attributing criminal culpability merely on the basis of
suspicion or the existence of circumstances which, by
themselves, do not establish the charges beyond reasonable
doubt.
15. Equally, the question concerning the victim's consent, her
understanding of the marriage and the circumstances in
which the marriage was solemnized cannot be treated as a
matter of mere formality. The evidence must be examined to
ascertain whether the marriage was entered into with her
willingness, whether it was imposed upon her against her
wishes, and what evidentiary material, if any, establishes the
circumstances in which the arrangement came to be made.
At the same time, the legal significance of consent must be
determined in accordance with the applicable statutory
framework, particularly having regard to the victim's age at
the relevant time. Her apparent willingness or the absence of
an express objection cannot, in itself, override any statutory
protection afforded to a minor. Nevertheless, the
surrounding circumstances remain relevant to the extent
that they assist the Court in determining the actual nature of
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(8 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
the transaction alleged by the prosecution and the individual
culpability attributed to each appellant.
16. Another circumstance which merits consideration is the
prosecution's own account concerning the relationship
between the biological mother of the victim and one of the
appellants, as well as the assertion that they were agreeable
to arrangements purportedly intended to secure the victim's
welfare. This circumstance, if borne out by the evidence on
record, requires evaluation in its proper perspective. The
relationship between the parties and their respective conduct
may provide relevant contextual background for
understanding how the alleged marriage came to be
solemnized and whether the prosecution's theory of sale or
exploitation finds corroboration in the surrounding
circumstances. However, such a circumstance cannot, by
itself, conclusively establish either the innocence or the guilt
of the appellants; its significance must be assessed
alongside the entire body of evidence and in conjunction
with the specific allegations made against each of them.
17. Viewed cumulatively, the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution do not appear to have been examined with the
degree of evidentiary certainty necessary to sustain the
conviction without further scrutiny. The material question is
not merely whether the victim was a minor or whether a
marriage was solemnized, but whether the prosecution has
satisfactorily established the alleged criminal transaction and
the requisite culpability of each appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. The distinction is of considerable importance, for the
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(9 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
existence of a circumstance that may invite legal scrutiny
does not, in itself, establish every criminal allegation sought
to be founded upon it.
18. Consequently, the prosecution evidence, particularly the
testimony of PW-5, the absence of satisfactory proof
regarding the alleged monetary consideration, the
circumstances surrounding the solemnization of the marriage
and the relationship between the persons concerned, calls
for a comprehensive and meticulous appraisal. The
deficiencies in the prosecution's case assume significance
when considered collectively, rather than in isolation, and
raise substantial questions concerning the sustainability of
the findings of guilt recorded against the appellants. The
benefit of doubt cannot be withheld where the evidence,
upon a fair and holistic evaluation, fails to cross the
threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The ultimate
determination must, therefore, rest upon the established
facts and the applicable law, rather than upon conjecture,
suspicion or assumptions arising merely from the
circumstances surrounding the marriage.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the evidence brought on record gives
rise to substantial arguable grounds warranting a closer
examination of the appellants’ conviction at the time of final
adjudication of the appeal. 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
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(10 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
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.
20. Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C.(corresponding to Section 430
BNSS) are allowed and it is ordered that the sentence
passed by learned trial court, the details of which are
provided in the first para of this order, against the appellant-
applicants named above shall remain suspended till final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released
on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge and whenever
ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the
conditions indicated below:-
1. That they will appear before the trial Court in
the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicants change the place of
residence, they will give in writing their changed
address to the trial Court as well as to the
counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their
address(s), they will give in writing their
changed address to the trial Court.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(11 of 11)
[2026:RJ-JD:51515] [SOSA-1057/2026]
21. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicants in a separate files. Such file be
registered as Criminal Misc. Cases related to original case in
which the accused-applicant was tried and convicted. A copy
of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready
reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account
for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of
cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicants
do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge
shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of
bail
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
S-A/41
Mamta Tak
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:19:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)