POCSO Act | Consensual Relationship Defence Allowed for Suspension of Sentence : Rajasthan HC

In a significant order under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence of an appellant convicted for alleged sexual assault, accepting the defence of a consensual relationship between the accused and the deceased victim. The Court granted bail pending appeal, emphasizing arguable legal issues and the appellant's prolonged custody since 2022, while imposing strict conditions to ensure his appearance during trial proceedings.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sunil, aged 23, was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 110/2022 (CIS No. 128/2022) vide judgment dated 22.01.2025 for offences under the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner repeatedly subjected the victim to forcible sexual assault by threatening to circulate her obscene photographs in society. The victim allegedly committed suicide after her family discovered the relationship, leading to the registration of the FIR.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was 21 years old at the time of the alleged incident.
• He has been in judicial custody since 30.07.2022.
• The prosecution alleged threats to circulate obscene photographs, but no such photographs were recovered during investigation.
• The victim’s family lodged the FIR after her suicide, allegedly to falsely implicate the petitioner.
• The petitioner and the victim shared a consensual relationship, as indicated by statements of prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (PW-15).

Procedural History

• 30.07.2022: Petitioner arrested and lodged in District Jail, Hanumangarh.
• 22.01.2025: Convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 110/2022.
• 2025: Criminal appeal filed before the Rajasthan High Court (likely S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1574/2025).
• 08.07.2026: Present application for suspension of sentence heard and allowed by the High Court.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• Argued that the petitioner and the victim shared a consensual relationship and had mutual affection.
• Contended that the victim’s suicide was triggered by her family’s discovery of the relationship, not due to any threat or assault by the petitioner.
• Highlighted that no obscene photographs were recovered during investigation, undermining the prosecution’s threat allegation.
• Submitted that the appeal involves arguable and debatable issues, warranting suspension of sentence pending final hearing.
• Emphasized the petitioner’s prolonged custody (since 2022) and the heavy pendency of criminal appeals, making early disposal unlikely.
• Assured the Court that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and poses no flight risk.

For the Respondent (State)

• Opposed the suspension of sentence, arguing that the conviction was based on cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence.
• Contended that the judgment should not be suspended pending appeal.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pending disposal of the criminal appeal, along with release on bail.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNS could be granted in a POCSO Act case, where the appellant raised arguable defences such as consensual relationship, absence of recovered evidence, and prolonged custody, despite the gravity of the offence.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Relied on the statements of prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer (PW-15), which indicated a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim.
• Argued that the absence of recovered obscene photographs weakened the prosecution’s case.
• Highlighted the prolonged judicial custody (nearly 4 years) and the delay in appeal disposal due to pendency.
• Assured the Court of the petitioner’s good conduct and no flight risk.

For the Respondent

• Contended that the conviction was based on strong evidence, and suspension of sentence would undermine the seriousness of the offence under the POCSO Act.
• Opposed bail on the ground that the judgment of conviction was well-reasoned and should not be interfered with.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the arguable issues raised in the appeal. The Court noted the following key points:

1. Consensual Relationship: The statements of prosecution witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, suggested that the petitioner and the victim shared a consensual relationship. This raised a debatable issue regarding the nature of the offence.
2. Absence of Evidence: The prosecution’s allegation of threats to circulate obscene photographs was not supported by recovered evidence, further weakening its case.
3. Prolonged Custody: The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 30.07.2022, and the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon due to heavy pendency.
4. No Flight Risk: The petitioner had no criminal antecedents and was unlikely to abscond.

The Court observed that while the POCSO Act is a stringent legislation aimed at protecting children from sexual offences, the suspension of sentence could be considered where arguable defences exist, and the appellant’s prolonged custody warranted relief. The Court relied on the principle that bail should not be denied merely on the gravity of the offence, especially when the appellant’s conduct and circumstances justified interim relief.

"Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants-appellants and having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellants, during pendency of the instant appeal."

The Verdict

The Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNS and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal. The following conditions were imposed:

1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court in January every year until the appeal is decided.
3. If the petitioner or sureties change their address, they shall inform the trial Court and the High Court counsel in writing.
4. The trial Court shall maintain a separate file for the petitioner’s attendance records, which shall not be counted for statistical purposes.
5. Non-compliance with any condition shall result in cancellation of bail and reporting to the High Court.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Consensual Relationship Defence in POCSO Cases

• The judgment highlights that consensual relationships between the accused and the victim can be a valid defence in POCSO Act cases, especially when supported by prosecution witnesses.
• Practitioners can argue that absence of recovered evidence (e.g., obscene photographs) weakens the prosecution’s case, even in serious offences.

Bail Conditions and Prolonged Custody

• Courts may consider suspension of sentence where the appellant has been in prolonged custody (e.g., 4 years) and the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.
• Strict bail conditions (e.g., annual appearance, bond requirements) may be imposed to ensure compliance.

Arguable Issues and Interim Relief

• The judgment underscores that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence if arguable defences exist.
• Practitioners should emphasize debatable legal issues and prolonged custody to seek interim relief in criminal appeals.