[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 17/04/2026 in R/CR.A/1840/2025 ]

0.2693372304273425

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

Perused the note for speaking to minutes.

In the order dated 17/04/2026, the following words in paragraphs 4 and 10 shall be substituted and read as under:

Para 4: “…. Judgment dated 19.03.2025 and order of sentence passed in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2023...

Para 10: “…. Judgment dated 19.03.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2023....

The rest of the order shall remain unchanged.

The note for speaking to minutes stands disposed of accordingly.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

Kaushal Rathod

0.2693372304273425

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent State and Mr.L.K. Dave, learned advocate waives service of rule for the private respondent. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. We have heard Ms.Urvashi Mehta, learned advocate, Mr.L.K. Dave, learned advocate and Mr.Vinay Vishen, learned APP for the respective parties.

3. By way of this application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant – Sagar Chimanbhai Chudasama, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

4. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 13.11.2024 and order of sentence passed in Special POCSO Case No. 3 of 2022, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:

5. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that the minor victim and accused aged about 21 years old got acquainted due to their neighborhood and for one day, they stayed together because of their intimate relationship. On the basis of the FIR and chargesheet, the accused was tried and prosecuted.

0.2693372304273425

6. Learned advocate Ms.Urvashi Mehta, appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that, the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated and incarceration period is one year and five months and as such, the possibility of early hearing is remote and/or bleak.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Vinay Vishen, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr.L.K. Dave, learned advocate for the private respondent have supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that the victim was minor and the defence as raised cannot be appreciated at this stage.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence?

9. We have carefully examined the case records and considered the submissions made at the bar. The accused being a neighbour of the victim, came into her contact and they developed intimation. The incarceration period is one year and five months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal. In such circumstances, by imposing stringent conditions, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant convict for the purpose of substantive order of sentence.

0.2693372304273425

10. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. The sentence of the applicant awarded vide judgment dated 13.11.2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in Spe