Rajasthan High Court suspends 20-year sentences in POCSO case, citing evidentiary doubts over alleged sale of minor

The applicants, Shrawan Nath and Mangunath, sought suspension of their sentences pending appeals from a judgment dated 25 March 2026.

The trial court had convicted them under Sections 6/17 and 5/6 of the POCSO Act and imposed a maximum sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with lesser sentences for other offences under Sections 143(4) and 144 of the BNS.

The prosecution case involved the victim’s minority, her marriage to Shrawan Nath, and an alleged transaction involving monetary consideration.

The applicants challenged the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and submitted that their appeals would take time to be decided.

The applications were considered together.

Whether the applicants had raised substantial and arguable grounds warranting suspension of their sentences pending appeal.

Whether the evidence concerning the victim’s testimony, the alleged monetary consideration, and the circumstances of the marriage justified suspending the sentences without prejudging the appeals.

Under Section 389 CrPC, corresponding to Section 430 BNSS, an appellate court may suspend a sentence after assessing whether the appeal raises substantial and arguable grounds; it need not make conclusive findings on the merits at this stage.

This post-conviction inquiry is distinct from bail under Section 439 CrPC, corresponding to Section 483 BNSS, which operates before conviction.

The Court relied on Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha (16 February 2026) for the proposition that prolonged, non-applicant-attributable delay in hearing an appeal may support suspension of sentence, and on Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, concerning continued incarceration during appeal.

It also recognised that the prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt; the victim’s minority or the existence of a marriage does not, by itself, establish every alleged offence.

The Court considered the victim’s admission that she did not know whether she had been sold for money, the absence of satisfactory evidence of payment or receipt, and the circumstances surrounding the marriage and the parties’ relationships.

It observed that the victim’s minority and the marriage were relevant, but did not eliminate the prosecution’s obligation to establish the ingredients of each offence and each applicant’s culpability.

The evidence and the distinction between a possible child-marriage-law violation and the separately charged offences raised substantial questions for appellate examination.

The Court treated these matters as grounds for suspension, not as final findings on guilt.

Each applicant was ordered released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, subject to conditions including annual appearance before the trial court, notification of address changes, and the trial court reporting non-appearance to the High Court for possible cancellation of bail.

The Court expressly refrained from expressing a final opinion on the merits of the appeals.