IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 4471 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal (C-SB) No. 40 of 2025 Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Decided on: 20.11.2025 Rizan @ Golu ....Applicant/appellant Versus State of H.P. .…Respondent/State Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant/appellant: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) seeking suspension of sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2025, in CIS No. 05 of 2025, whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Rs. 1,000/- under Section 332(c) of BNS, simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 74 of BNS and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 12 of POCSO Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contended that the the learned trial Court gravely erred in holding that the victim was a minor within the meaning of the POCSO Act, as the documents relied upon by the prosecution, i.e. school certificate and birth certificate issued by the Panchayat, suffered from material deficiencies. She further contended that the learned trial Court has ignored that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which raise doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. She also contended that as per medical examination of the victim there is nothing on record to suggest that she was dragged by her hairs and neck and grandmother of the victim, who claimed injury on her shoulder, was never medically examined. She also contended that there is delay in lodging the FIR, which gives rise to the possibility of deliberation and false implication, as there was some dispute going on between the parties. Lastly, she 2 prayed that the present application may be allowed and the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State contended that the applicant does not have good arguable case in his favour and he is not entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal as he has committed a serious offence upon the child victim and he has been proved guilty of committing a heinous crime after a full-fledged trial. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the material available on record. 5. The only allegation against the applicant is that on 28.11.2024 at about 11:00 P.M., he knocked at the door of the maternal grandmother of the child victim and entered inside the room forcibly and made indecent gestures at the child victim, caught hold of her and pulled her out of the room by her hand and also grabbed her hair and neck. 3 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also after going through the entire evidence on record, which has been considered prima facie for the purpose of adjudicating the instant application, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant/appellant has made out a case for suspension of sentence imposed upon him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under: “3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate 4 court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence. So as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted.” 7. In the case on hand, the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant/appellant is three years. The instant appeal pertains to the year 2025 and the same is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future and there is also nothing on record to suggest that the delay in deciding the appeal is attributable to the applicant/appellant. Moreover, during trial the applicant was on bail and never misused the liberty so granted to him. 8. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai’s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, it is ordered that the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant, vide judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., shall remain suspended, till final 5 disposal of the instant appeal, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court and also depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, undertaking therein to appear in the Court as and when directed and in the event of the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant will surrender before the Court to undergo sentence, if any, imposed by the Court. 9. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same has been given only for the purpose of deciding the present application. The application stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) November 20, 2025 Judge (raman) 6