An appellate court, while considering the suspension of a sentence, should only examine if there is a patent infirmity in the conviction order and cannot re-assess or re-analyze evidence to take a different view from the trial court.

O R D E R

CRL.M.(BAIL) 2477/2025

1. This is an application under Section 430 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), seeking suspension of the sentence filed by the accused in Sessions Case no. 694/2022 on the file of Court of the Additional Sessions Judge 09, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

2. As per the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC. The appellant/accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/ accused submits that out of the sentence of 8 years, the appellant has already served 2 years. It is also submitted that the materials on record is totally insufficient to find the accused guilty for the offences charged against him. The trial court, on complete mis-appreciation of the evidence, has erroneously concluded regarding the guilt of the accused and convicted him. In such circumstances, the sentence is liable to be suspended.

4. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who submits that the materials on record is sufficient to convict the accused. Moreover, in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings, the victim had identified the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the materials on record and therefore, this is not a fit case in which the appellant is entitled for suspension of sentence.

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is well settled that while considering an application for suspension of sentence, the appellate court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders it prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the trial court and conclusions arrived at, the appellate court, while exercising its power for suspension of sentence, cannot re-assess or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail. [See Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. , (2020) 8 SCC 645].

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the materials on record is totally insufficient and cannot be relied on is a matter that needs to be considered at the time of the appeal.

8. No patent infirmity is seen. Hence, the application is dismissed.

CRL.A. 1694/2025

9. List on 19.11.2026.