The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted suspension of sentence to a convicted appellant under the POCSO Act, despite the gravity of the offense, on grounds of substantial time served and the appellant’s age at the time of the incident. This decision underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach to balancing punitive justice with rehabilitative principles in cases involving young offenders.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ramprasad, was convicted under Section 363, Section 366, and Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, five years, and life imprisonment respectively, along with fines. The prosecution alleged that on 12 June 2019, at approximately 2:00 PM, the appellant, aged 19, took the prosecutrix - then aged seven - to an under-construction house, removed her clothes, and attempted to sexually assault her. When she shouted, he fled the scene. The incident was reported the next day, leading to registration of the case under Section 354B IPC and Sections 9(u), 9(m), and 10 of the POCSO Act.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- June 2019: FIR registered after prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her family
- 2020 - 2021: Trial conducted; conviction secured based on prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and corroborative evidence
- 2022: Sentencing imposed - life imprisonment for Section 376AB and concurrent terms for other offenses
- 2025: First two applications under Section 430 BNSS for suspension of sentence withdrawn
- 2025: Third application filed seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his sentence pending disposal of his appeal, citing his age at the time of offense (19 years), the fact that he had already served six years and six months in custody, and the likelihood of prolonged appellate proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) permits suspension of sentence in cases under the POCSO Act where the accused has served a substantial portion of the sentence, is young, and the appellate process is likely to be protracted, despite the seriousness of the offense.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the appellant’s conduct constituted an attempt rather than completed rape, as the prosecutrix’s outcry led to immediate withdrawal. Emphasizing his age (19) at the time of offense, counsel contended that the appellant was still in the formative stage of development and deserved a chance for rehabilitation. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh and Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, where courts had suspended sentences in POCSO cases where the accused had served a significant portion of the term and showed no prior criminal antecedents.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed suspension, asserting that the victim was a seven-year-old child and the offense under Section 376AB IPC - which carries mandatory life imprisonment - is among the most heinous under the POCSO regime. Counsel cited State of U.P. v. Suresh and Kailash v. State of Haryana, arguing that suspension in such cases undermines deterrence and public confidence in the justice system.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offense, the appellant’s age, the duration of incarceration, and the purpose of Section 430 BNSS, which permits suspension of sentence pending appeal if the appellate court is satisfied that the appellant is not likely to abscond or commit further offenses. The Court noted that while the offense was grave, the prosecutrix’s testimony indicated the act was interrupted by her outcry, suggesting an attempt rather than consummated rape. The Court further observed that the appellant had already served over half of his minimum sentence and was not a repeat offender.
"The law does not demand that justice be blind to the passage of time or the humanity of the accused, even in cases involving children. Where the accused has served a substantial portion of the sentence and the appellate process is likely to be protracted, suspension is not an act of leniency but a recognition of procedural fairness."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving repeated or aggravated sexual violence, noting the absence of prior criminal history and the appellant’s youth. It held that the balance of convenience favored suspension, provided strict conditions were imposed to protect the victim.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS is permissible in POCSO cases where substantial time has been served, the accused is young, and the appellate process is delayed, provided stringent conditions are imposed to safeguard the victim. The sentence was suspended subject to a bail bond of ₹50,000, one surety of like amount, deposit of unpaid fine, and a strict prohibition on contacting or threatening the prosecutrix.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suspension Is Not Barred by the Nature of the Offense Alone
- Practitioners must now argue that gravity of offense alone cannot disqualify an appellant from suspension under Section 430 BNSS
- Courts must weigh time served, age at time of offense, and likelihood of appellate delay as independent factors
- This decision aligns with the principle of proportionality under Article 21
Age at Time of Offense Remains a Critical Mitigating Factor
- Even if the accused is above 18, being a young adult (18 - 21) at the time of offense may justify suspension where the act was not fully consummated
- This does not apply to repeat offenders or those with predatory patterns
- Defense counsel should emphasize developmental immaturity and absence of prior conduct
Conditions Must Be Tailored to Victim Protection
- Suspension is conditional on no contact with the victim, bail bond with surety, and fine payment
- Courts will likely impose similar conditions in future POCSO suspension applications
- Violation of conditions will lead to immediate revocation and re-imprisonment
