Appellate courts should liberally grant suspension of sentence to convicts with fixed-term imprisonments when the appeal is not expected to be heard promptly, ensuring the statutory right of appeal remains meaningful and is not rendered futile by the passage of time.

IA JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of filing the present application under the provisions of Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant–convict (i.e. the original accused) seeks suspension of sentence imposed upon him vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Special Case (POCSO) No. 3 of 2026.

3. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the applicant-accused came to be held guilty and convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 75(1)(i), 75(2) and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and consequently, the applicant-accused has been ordered to undergo sentence as under : -

4. However, after appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused from the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as under Sections 3(1)(w)(1)(3) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. It appears from the jail remarks that the applicant-accused has already undergone 6 months and 03 days of incarceration out of the total sentence imposed upon him. The appeal preferred by the applicant-accused came to be admitted by this Court today itself.

6. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Altaf Y. Charkha appearing for the present applicant-accused has submitted that initially the applicant-accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(i), 75(2) and 76 of the Indian Penal Code; under Sections 3(1)(w)(1)(3) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; however, at the end of the trial, after appreciating the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted him from the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as under Sections 3(1)(w)(1)(3) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and convicted him only for the offence punishable under Sections 75(1)(i), 75(2) and 76 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the trial Court thought it fit to impose a short term of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years along with the fine. Learned advocate has submitted that the applicant-accused has already undergone 06 months and 03 days of incarceration out of the total sentence imposed upon him. He has, therefore, urged that the applicant-accused has atleast an arguable case for suspension of sentence.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Charkha, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in 1999 (4) SCC 421, has urged that since the trial court has convicted and sentenced the applicant-accused for a short term of rigorous imprison