The Supreme Court has suspended the sentence of two men convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that a prima facie case for suspension of sentence was made out in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, absence of criminal antecedents, and arguable legal issues concerning the determination of the victim’s age.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a Special Leave Petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated May 4, 2026, which had refused to suspend the sentence of the petitioners during the pendency of their criminal appeal.
The petitioners were convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jhunjhunu, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO Act and, in the case of one petitioner, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Both were sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine.
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel submitted that they had already undergone approximately one-and-a-half years of incarceration, had no previous criminal antecedents, and had earlier been granted bail by the High Court during trial after taking note of inconsistencies regarding the victim’s age, the consensual nature of the relationship, and medical evidence showing no signs of forceful intercourse.
The State opposed the plea, relying on the matching DNA/FSL report and the gravity of the offences involving a minor under the POCSO Act.
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal. However, it held that a prima facie case for suspension of sentence existed, particularly in light of the custody period already undergone, the petitioners’ clean antecedents, and the arguable legal questions surrounding the determination of the victim’s age.
Accordingly, the Bench directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal before the Rajasthan High Court. It further directed the trial court to release the petitioners on bail on appropriate terms and clarified that, in the event of breach of any bail condition, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the High Court.
