Suspension of sentence requires patent infirmity in conviction, not re-appreciation of evidence.

Faizaan Tak (Appellant/Accused) was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court - Rape Cases), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, for offenses under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), vide judgment dated 23.07.2024.

He was sentenced on 21.09.2024, to seven years simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 for Section 376 IPC, and one year simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1000 for Section 509 IPC, with sentences running concurrently.

The prosecution alleged that on 01.08.2015, the accused criminally trespassed into the room of PW1 and committed rape.

The appellant sought suspension of sentence under Section 430(1) read with Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual, citing PW1's admission of sharing nude photos/videos and an unexplained seven-day delay in FIR registration.

It was also submitted that other witnesses contradicted PW1's account and an FSL report did not match the accused's semen.

The appellant had undergone 1 year and 11 months of incarceration of the 7-year sentence and had no prior criminal antecedents.

Whether the sentence of the appellant, convicted for offenses under Sections 450 and 376 IPC, should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal under Section 430 BNSS (formerly Section 389 Cr.P.C.).

The court primarily applied Section 430 BNSS (Section 389 Cr.P.C.), which governs the suspension of sentence during appeal.

The principles for considering suspension of sentence, particularly that the appellate court should not re-appreciate evidence at this stage, were drawn from Preet Pal Singh vs State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645 and Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC 123.

The significance of conviction altering the presumption of innocence in serious offenses was highlighted by Rajesh Upadhayay v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2853.

The court also acknowledged the liberal consideration for suspension in fixed-term sentences where appeals are delayed, as per Aasif v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1644 and Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421.

The court found that the arguments advanced by the appellant's counsel amounted to an attempt to re-appreciate evidence, which is impermissible at the stage of suspension of sentence.

Following Preet Pal Singh and Omprakash Sahni, the court emphasized that it should only examine if there is patent infirmity in the conviction order, not re-assess evidence.

The court noted PW1's detailed Section 164 statement describing the accused's overt acts, stating that the consistency of her statements and her credibility would be assessed during the appeal on merits.

The court further addressed the argument of delay in FIR registration, stating that not all delays are fatal to the prosecution, especially in offenses of this nature, where victims often deliberate before proceeding under law.

Distinguishing the present case from those warranting liberal suspension, the court noted the serious nature of the allegations, concluding that it was not appropriate to invoke the discretionary power for suspension of sentence.

The court held that, given the serious nature of the allegations and the fact that an appellate court at this stage cannot re-appreciate evidence, there were no grounds to invoke its discretionary power to suspend the sentence.

The appropriate course of action was determined to be expediting the hearing of the main appeal.

The matter was listed for hearing of CRL.A. 1031/2024 and CRL.M.A. 21912/2025 on 20.04.2026.