JUDGMENT :

1. The present application has been preferred by the appellant for suspension of sentence awarded vide order dated 3rd February, 2021 pursuant to order of conviction dated 11th January, 2021 of the Ld. Trial Court. The conviction arose out of FIR No.471/2016 under sections 8 and 12 PCOSO Act registered at PS Punjabi Bagh and the sentenced awarded was for simple imprisonment (SI) for 4 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 8 POCSO Act (SI for a period of one month in default of payment of fine) and SI for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 12 POCSO Act (SI for a period of 15 days in default of payment of fine). The appellant has already undergone incarceration for 2 years 2 months. As per the nominal roll, no interim bail has been sought during this period of incarceration and his jail conduct is satisfactory.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was a reputed computer coach in a computer centre where the prosecutrix was a student and had been enrolled with him for learning various computer programs and software including web designing, which is a matter of record.

3. As per the appellant, he was supposed to receive a total fee of Rs.18,500/- for the said courses which was to be paid full in advance whereas only Rs.6,000/- was paid by the parents of the prosecutrix. The fact that the entire fee was to be paid in advance, as per the appellant, is evident from the cross examination of PW-2 (mother of the prosecutrix) and PW-3 father of the prosecutrix. It is the case of the appellant that when he demanded the balance fee, parents of the prosecutrix falsely implicated him in the present proceedings.

4. The appellant has further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix and an application had been filed by the prosecution to summon the principal of the school of the prosecutrix but there was no adjudication on that application. It is the case of the appellant that the prosecution was not confident of the age of the prosecutrix however, this aspect was brushed aside by the Ld. Trial Court. Moreover, the place where the coaching was being conducted by the appellant was situated in a densely populated area and in the appellant’s own home which had the presence of appellant’s mother, father, brother and others.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended in the memo of appeal that the CDRs and location charts of mobiles of either the prosecutrix, her parents or that of appellant have not been placed on record by the IO along with charge sheet. Further, he relies on the fact that the family of the appellant had also provided their testimonies in defence that they were available in that area and they had not noted any surreptitious activity as has been alleged by the prosecutrix.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further adverted to the period undergone which is more than half of the sentence awarded and the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents nor any involvement in any other case in support of his plea for suspension of sentence. Also the fact that the appellant is a young person having his entire future and career ahead and belongs to a respectable family, and has a fixed place of abode i.e. H No.198, Pocket-3, Janta Flats, Paschim Puri, New Delhi – 110063 and therefore, not a flight risk. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonadhar v. State of Chhatisgar, SLP (Crl.) 529/2021 order dated 6th October, 2021 and Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) 46633/2021 order dated 5th October, 2021 as well as various other decisions of coordinate Benches of this Court where the suspension of sentence has been granted to the convicts under sections 8 and 10 of PCOSO Act.

7. Learned APP for the State has refuted the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant stating that version of the pro