Sumit vs STATE OF HP

2026:HHC:36930-DB
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026 in
Cr.App.(C-DB) No.43 of 2025
Reserved on : 12.08.2026
Date of decision: 01.09.2026
Date of upload : 01.09.2026
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sumit Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
____________________________________________________________________________

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
_____________________________________________________________________________
For the Applicant. Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.
__________________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
This application has been preferred by applicant-appellant
for suspension of his sentence awarded to him, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2025, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Sirmaur,
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
District at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 14-ST/7 of 2020, titled State
of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sumit, arising from FIR No. 40/2020, dated
17.05.2020, registered at Police Station Pachhad, whereby he has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and
to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence punishable under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two years and also to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
commission of offence under Section 363 of IPC and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has argued that
keeping in view statement of victim recorded in the Court as PW-1 and
statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C., as well as contents of the
application submitted by her at the time of seeking permission for
abortion, clearly indicate that it was not a case of kidnapping or alluring
the victim by the applicant-appellant and she has clearly stated role on
her part, which has been considered as an offence by considering her
minor, whereas from her statement, it is apparent that she had disclosed
her date of birth as 25.03.2000 and as such, on the date of alleged
commission of offence, i.e., in the year 2020, she was about 20 years old.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
Therefore, sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant deserves to be
suspended during pendency of the appeal.
3. It has been submitted that applicant-appellant was on bail
during pendency of trial and he did not abscond, rather he surrendered
himself to serve the sentence on his conviction by the Trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that
applicant-appellant was compelled by the victim to accompany her by
giving threat to commit suicide for not marrying with her, when her
marriage was being proposed by one Deepak and the applicant-appellant
was compelled by the victim to marry her.
5. It has been further submitted that there are discrepancies
with regard to the evidence related to age of the victim and, therefore, by
considering the statements of the victim as well as discrepancy in date of
birth, there is a fair chance of acquittal of the applicant-appellant and,
thus, sentence imposed/awarded to him deserves to be suspended.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has referred
examination-in-chief of PW-1 (victim), wherein she has stated that in the
year 2020, she developed friendship with applicant-appellant Sumit who
was running mobile repair shop at Narag, who also visited her house and
had been expressing his intention to solemnize marriage with her. During
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
that period, they developed physical relation with each other and in the
meantime a sister of her village brought a proposal for her marriage with
one Deepak, whereupon she disclosed this fact to applicant-appellant
Sumit and asked him to solemnize marriage with threat that otherwise
she would commit suicide.
7. Thereafter, on 10.05.2020, at 8:00 P.M., applicant-appellant
reached her home and then both of them went to Solan and various
places and stayed in the house of friend of victim, house of friend of
applicant-appellant, Massi (aunt) and maternal grandmother of the
applicant-appellant, and thereafter, she was recovered by the police.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also
referred cross-examination of the victim, wherein she has admitted that
she had a Facebook ID in her name and in the said ID, she had displayed
her photograph along with date of birth as 25.03.2000.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted
that victim has also admitted the statement made by her before
Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. at the first instance, which has
been exhibited as Ext. P-3/PW-1.
10. Referring the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the
applicant-appellant has submitted that it was stated by the victim that she
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
had left her home on 10.05.2020 at about 8:00 P.M. by telling that she
was going to her maternal uncle's house, living nearby to her home.
Further, that both of them, Sumit and victim liked each other and she left
the house by telling lie and went to Solan with Sumit and, thereafter, they
stayed in the house of friend of victim. Thereafter, they stayed in the
house of friend of applicant-appellant and, thereafter, they stayed in the
house of maternal grandmother and aunt (Massi). She stayed along with
Sumit in different places and she had accompanied Sumit with her will
without telling her family members and applicant-appellant had not
kidnapped her or allured her. She had further stated that no physical
relation was developed between them. Lastly, she had expressed her
desire not to take any action in the matter. The statement was duly
verified by Judicial Magistrate.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted
that at the time of medical examination on 08.06.2020, as recorded by
Doctor in MLC (Ext. P4/PW-8), the victim had disclosed that she left
house and stayed with her husband and moved to various places and
sexual intercourse was done by her after marriage by her own will.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also
referred photograph (Ext. P15/PW-24), wherein victim is wearing red suit
along with bangles (marriage chooda), in her arms, indicating that she
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
had solemnized marriage with the applicant-appellant. He has stated that
this photograph is also corroborating the version of the victim that she
compelled the applicant-appellant to accompany her and to solemnize
marriage with her.
13. It has been further submitted that at the time of filing an
application seeking permission for abortion, victim, on 08.06.2020, had
written to President of Child Welfare Committee, Solan by stating that she
had solemnized marriage according to her desire on 10.05.2020 with
Sumit after fleeing from home and she was pregnant since last two
months and as she was not able to bear responsibility of upbringing child,
she had intended to seek permission for abortion.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted
that in this application also, victim had clearly stated that she had married
according to her desire with applicant-appellant.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also
submitted that in examination-in-chief in the first line, the victim stated
that her date of birth is 30.11.2003, whereas in cross-examination, she
had admitted that she had displayed her date of birth along with her ID
and photograph in the Facebook in her name, as 25.03.2000.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
16. It has been submitted that in the Certificate (Ext. P-2/PW3),
date of birth recorded in the school is stated to be 30.11.2004 and in
Pariwar Register (Ext. P-1/PW22) also, date of birth of the victim has
been recorded 30.11.2004.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted
that from the display of date of birth as 25.03.2000, there was no
occasion for the applicant-appellant to consider the victim as minor, and
therefore, he acceded to the requests and threats of the victim to
accompany her and to solemnize marriage with her, but for the date of
birth recorded in the school, the victim has been considered as minor,
and as consent of minor is immaterial, the applicant-appellant has been
convicted for no fault on his part.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has also
referred statement of mother of victim recorded as PW-2, wherein she
has stated that initially victim had refused for her medical examination,
but later became ready and her medical examination was conducted. He
has also submitted that it has come in evidence of prosecution that during
the period when she eloped with Sumit, she had been continuously
talking with her sister, but was not picking up call of her parents.
19. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that it has
proved on record by producing the Certificate of date of birth from the
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

8 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
school (Ext. P-2/PW3) that at the time of incident, victim was minor and
she became pregnant due to her violation by the applicant-appellant
during the period when she was accompanying him, and being a minor,
consent of victim is immaterial, and therefore, Trial Court has rightly
convicted the applicant-appellant for commission of offense under Section
363 & 376, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and for evidence on record,
the applicant-appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence, as there
is no likelihood of his acquittal in the light of evidence on record.
20. Considering the rival contentions of parties, in the given set
of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that sentence imposed upon
applicant-appellant may be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
21. Accordingly, substantive sentence awarded to the applicant-
appellant Sumit is ordered to be suspended during pendency of the
appeal, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court, with
undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when directed and
in the event of dismissal of the appeal, to surrender before the Court, to
serve the remaining sentence.
22. During suspension of sentence, applicant-appellant Sumit
shall not involve in commission of illegal and/or unlawful act, much less in
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS

9 2026:HHC:36930-DB
Cr.M.P. No. 818 of 2026
High Court of H.P.
commission of similar offence and such involvement shall result
cancellation of suspension of sentence.
23. Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial
Court to the Registry of this Court for placing the same on record.
24. Any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has
been given only for the purpose of deciding present application.
25. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order
downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall not insist for production of
certified copy of order, rather Trial Court shall verify passing of this order
from the Web-page of the High Court.
Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
st
1 September, 2026
(Susheel)
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:05:36 :::CIS