##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP No. 4096 of 2025 in

Cr. Appeal No. 179 of 2023

Reserved on: 12.12.2025

Date of Decision: 22.12.2025

______________________________________________________

Lekh Ram @ Sunil Kumar ...Appellant/Applicant.

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent/Non-Applicant.

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellant/

applicant: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Deputy Advocate

General.

4. _ __________________________________________________

Romesh Verma , Judge

This order shall dispose off an application filed by

the appellant/applicant under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of execution of the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated

24.02.2023/25.02.2023 as passed by the learned Special

Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Mandi, District

Mandi, H.P. in Session Trial No. 107 of 2018.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant

has submitted that applicant/appellant has been falsely roped

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:08:17 :::CIS

2

and implicated in the present case as either directly or

indirectly he is not involved in any manner in the present case.

He has stated that learned trial Court has not appreciated the

oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and

had wrongly convicted the applicant/appefllant under the

provisions of Section 363 of Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC)

for five years, under Section 376 of tIPC for 20 years and under

Section 6 of Prevention Of Children From Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act) for 20 years. It has been

stated that there are fair chances of acquittal of the

applicant/appellant and he has already completed 7 years of

sentence on 9^th September, 2025. Lastly, he has contended

that the quantum of sentence has been passed by the learned

Court below as per the amended provisions of IPC and the

POCSO Act. He has submitted that as per Sub Section 3 of

Section 376 of IPC, which was amended on 21.04.2018 and

POCSO Act which was amended w.e.f. 16.08.2019, the

applicant has been charged for committing the offences dated

28.03.2018 under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of

PCSCO Act. He has submitted that the applicant/appellant

cannot be sentenced under the provisions of amended Act as

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:08:17 :::CIS

3

the alleged date of commission of offence is 28.03.2018 i.e.

prior to the amendment in the Acts. Therefore, the present

application deserves to be allowed and the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence is liable to be

suspended/stayed during the pendency of the fmain appeal.

3. On the other hand, Mr. J.S.Guleria, learned

Deputy Advocate General for tthe respondent/State has

vehemently opposed the present application and has

contended that the learned Court below has rightly convicted

the applicant as he has committed heinous crime punishable

under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and 6 of POCSO Act.

Therefore, no leniency can be shown to the applicant/appellant

at the stage of appeal, that too, while deciding the application

for suspension of sentence. He has further submitted that the

sentence as passed by the learned Court below is based upon

the statutory mandate. Since the sentence is based on the

gravity of offence, evidence, facts and circumstances of the

case, therefore, the plea of the applicant that the sentence is

contrary to the provisions of law is baseless and liable to be

rejected. Lastly, he has submitted that no case is made out for

the suspension of sentence.

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:08:17 :::CIS

4

4. We have heard Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja,

Advocate, appearing for the applicant/appellant and Mr.

J.S.Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for

the respondent/State and have also scanned the record for the

purpose of adjudicating the present appli