IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP No. 3953 of 2025 in

Cr. Appeal No.112 of 2023

Reserved on: 02.01.2026

Date of Decision: 08.01.2026.

______________________________________________________

Joginder @ Abhishek ...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. George and Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni,

Advocates.

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 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of execution of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2022/ 24.12.2022 as passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Rampur Bushahr, H.P.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that applicant/appellant has been falsely roped and implicated in the present case as either directly or indirectly he

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

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/appellant for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under fSection 363 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a periodt of one month. Further he has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- under Section 6 of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The applicant/appellant is in custody since 14^th October, 2020 and he has completed almost 5 years of incarceration. It has been stated that there are fair chances of acquittal of the applicant/appellant, 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 main appeal.

4. The State has filed reply to the application and they have vehemently opposed the present application. It has been averred in the reply that applicant has indulged in serious offences and, 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 pasfsed by the learned Court below is based upon the statutory mandate. Lastly, he has submitted that no case is matde out for the suspension of sentence.

5. We have heard Mr. George and Mr. Vinod Kumar Soni, Advocates, 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 application.

6. The occurrence in the present case has occurred on 13.10.2020, therefore, in the present case, the provisions of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 shall be applicable which reads as follows:

“94. Presumption and determination of age:— (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding w