SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1168

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Aasif @ Pasha - Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3409 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11361 of 2025
Decided On : 06-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohd. Fuzail Khan, AOR Ms. Shisba Chawla, Adv. Mr. Anisul Haque, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension of sentence – When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence should be considered by Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 [Section 430 of BNSS] – Suspension of sentence – Conviction for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, Sections 354, 354Kha, 323 and 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, 1989 – Case in hand is one of a fixed term of sentence – Maximum punishment that has been imposed is four years – When Appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons, such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously, Appellate Court must show special concern in the matter of suspending sentence so as to make appeal right, meaningful and effective – Appellate Courts can impose similar conditions when appeal is granted – Appeal of 2024 is not likely to be taken up in near future – Ultimately, if four years are to elapse in jail same would render appeal infructuous and that would be travesty of justice – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration of plea of appellant for suspension of substantive order of sentence. (Paras 11, 12, 17, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Instant petition arises from order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 29-5-2025 in Criminal Appeal No.8689/2024 by which High Court declined to suspend substantive order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:

High Court shall re-hear the application filed by the appellant – herein afresh at the earliest and pass an appropriate order within 15 days.

Result : Appeal disposed of.

Table of Content
1. court dissatisfaction with the high court's denial to suspend sentence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of the case and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. consideration of sentence suspension principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. assessment of high court's handling of suspension. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. addressing procedural errors in the high court's approach. (Para 20)
6. court's order for re-evaluation by high court. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed.

3. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 29-5-2025 in Criminal Appeal No.8689/2024 by which the High Court declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant was put to trial in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Meerut, Uttar Pradesh in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Case No.270/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 8 respectively of the POCSO Act, Sections 354 , 354Kha, 323 and 504 respectively of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. At the end of the trial, the appellant stood convicted.

6. He was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC for the offence under Sections 7 and 8 respectively of the POCSO, he came to be sentenced to undergo 4 years of RI with fine of Rs.4,000/- and for the offence under the SC/AT Atrocities Act, he came to be sentenced to undergo 4 years of RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The Trial Court ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

7. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, the appellant went in appeal before the High Court. His Criminal Appeal No.8689/2024 is awaiting final hearing. In the said appeal, the appellant preferred an application under Section 389 of the Code seeking suspension of the substantive order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

8. The High Court declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence observing as under:-

“21. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant/appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant/appellant, accusation made, this court finds that the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to this application for suspension of sentence could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant with reference to the record at this stage, therefore, irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant in support of this application for suspension of sentence and also considering the fact that the applicant/appellant has been held to be guilty of committing the offence which is not only immoral but also heinous, therefore, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail during the pendency of present appeal.”

9. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present petition.

10. There are two types of sentence that the Trial Court can impose depending on the nature of the offence. Some orders of sentence are for a fixed term, unlike the order of sentence of life imprisonment.

11. The case in hand is one of a fixed term of sentence. The maximum punishment that has been imposed is 4 years.

12. Way back in 1999, this Court in “ Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others v. State of Gujarat ” reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421 stated that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top