US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Kuldeep Singh Sengar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
1. The present application has been filed by the Appellant under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 ["CrPC"] seeking regular suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
2. The Appellant herein has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 /363/366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ["IPC"] read with Sections 5 (c)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ["POCSO Act"] vide judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge – West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ["learned Trial Court"] in Sessions Case No. 448/2019 arising out of FIR No. 96/2018 registered at Poli
Legislators not 'public servants' under Section 21 IPC for POCSO aggravated offenses; sentence suspended post minimum term service pending appeal.
A court should generally suspend a fixed-term sentence pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
Rape of girl child – Once a victim of rape, particularly, a child is found to be truthful in her deposition, said evidence is adequate to establish charge of commission of offence punishable under Se....
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age as below 18 years, thus the POCSO Act was not applicable, leading to a modification of the conviction under IPC.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article