$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 708/2025 VISHNU .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Mr. P. M.

Ms. Anjali Kumar and Mr. Vishal Thakre, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State along with SI Dharmveer, PS Chhawla.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025 CRL.M.(BAIL) 1115/2025 (Suspension of sentence)

1. The Appellant has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 440353/2016, vide judgement dated 28^th February, 2025 passed by the ASJ (SC-POCSO) South-West District, Dwarka Courts, for the offences under Sections 366/343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012., “POCSO” These proceedings emanate from FIR No. 171/2015, registered at P.S. Chhawala for the offences under Sections 363/376/328/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. By order on sentence dated 12^th March, 2025, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, along with a fine of INR 5,000/- and default sentence of

30 days; simple imprisonment for 4 years for the offence under Section 366 IPC, along with a fine of INR 5,000/- and default sentence of 30 days; and simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 343 of IPC.

These sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, counsel for the Appellant, submits that the relationship between the Appellant and the victim was consensual in nature and that there is hardly any age difference between them. It is contended that the Appellant himself was a juvenile aged 17 years at the relevant time, as reflected in his election identity card, whereas the victim was aged 16 years as per the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the co-accused, against whom the allegation of administering intoxicants to the victim was levelled, have already been acquitted by the Trial Court. Accordingly, it is argued that the prosecution case is not sustainable and that the Trial Court committed an error in relying on the same set of evidence to acquit the co-accused while convicting the Appellant. It is also pointed out that the Appellant has already undergone approximately 40% of the sentence awarded to him and, given the strength of his case on merits, there is a reasonable likelihood of an acquittal. On humanitarian grounds as well, it is urged that the Appellant is a married man with three children who are dependent upon him. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Appellant’s sentence be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State, as well as Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, counsel representing the victim, oppose the request. They submit that the prosecution case stands corroborated by scientific evidence and that the testimony of the victim has remained consistent throughout, and therefore the conviction warrants no interference.

4. The aforesaid contentions, as well as the other grounds raised by the Appellant, will require detailed consideration at the stage of final hearing. For the present, it is sufficient to note that, as per the Nominal Roll, as on 7^th December, 2025, the Appellant has undergone a sentence of 2 years, 9 months and 14 days, and further earned remission of 2 months and 6 days. The unexpired portion of his sentence stands at 4 years and 10 months. The Nominal Roll further records that his jail conduct has been satisfactory and that he is not involved in any other criminal case.

5. The Supreme Court, in Aasif v. State of U.P.,, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1644. observed that in cases where the sentence awarded is of limited duration and the appellate court finds that, for practical reasons, the appeal cannot be disposed of expeditiously, special concern must be shown in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to ensure that the right of appeal remains meaningful and effective. Further, in