The Court emphasized that in cases where the maximum sentence is relatively short and the appeal is likely to take time to be heard, the absence of adverse reasons can be compelling reasons for the suspension of execution of the sentence.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

1. The challenge herein is to the order dated 09.11.2021, whereby the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has declined the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2021.

2. The appeal aforesaid has been filed by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case No. 15 of 2019.

3. The substance of the accusation against the appellant had been that he kidnapped the 9-year-old victim from the custody of her legal guardian and with intention to outrage her modesty, used criminal force and with sexual intention, held her hand so as to forcefully take her to a place away from road. It had been the prosecution’s case that the victim got released her hand and ran while shouting. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty and after recording conviction awarded sentences as follows: -

(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)

4. The submissions on behalf of the appellant before the Appellate Court seeking suspension of execution of sentence had been that the Trial Court had overlooked major contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses; and that he was on bail during the trial but did not misuse his liberty and even after pronouncement of judgment, he was granted bail for a limited period. It was also submitted that the disposal of the appeal was likely to take some time and, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.

5. The High Court has proceeded to reject the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence with reference to the deposition of the prosecutrix, who was nine years of age, with its corroboration from the medical evidence. The High Court, of course, made no comments on the merits of the case but then, ordered that the appeal be listed for hearing in due course.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the High Court has taken too strict and stern view of the matter and has failed to appreciate that the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded in this matter is of three years and all the sentences are to run concurrently; and the appellant had already served two months of imprisonment until consideration of the prayer for suspension by the High Court.

7. It is submitted that if further execution of sentence is denied, the appellant is likely to serve out the entire or substantial part of the sentence of imprisonment and, thereafter, even if the Appellate Court would be persuaded to reverse the order of conviction, the deprivation of liberty for all this time could never be undone.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has strenuously argued that for grant of suspension of execution of sentence, special reasons were indeed required in this case; and, with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.:(2020) 8 SCC 645 (particularly paragraphs 35 and 38 thereof), has argued that for no special and compelling reason forthcoming in this case, the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence has rightly been rejected.

9. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we are unable to