2025:HHC:39453 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP No. 1758/2025 in Cr. A. No. 126/2025 Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Decided on: 21.11.2025 Pappu …..Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant/Applicant: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. Advocate General Romesh Verma, Judge This order shall dispose of an application filed by the appellant\applicant, Pappu, under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for suspension of sentence, as 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2025, during the pendency of the appeal, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got prima facie good and arguable case in his favour and in all probabilities, the appeal is likely to succeed. He has further submitted that since disposal of the appeal will take some time, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, in case the execution of the sentence imposed by the learned court below is not stayed, in that event the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss. He has urged that the prosecution has failed to connect the applicant to the commission of the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Lastly, he has submitted that the applicant is 32 years old and he is only the sole bread earner 3 of the family, therefore, sentence, as imposed, may be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. 3 The present application has been vehemently contested by the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent. He has contended that the applicant is involved in a heinous offence and the learned court below vide the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.3.2025, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, has rightly convicted the applicant. Lastly, he has prayed for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence of the applicant. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed before us. 5 Perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as PW1 shows that she has stated in her deposition that when she had gone to graze the cattle, the applicant took her away. He committed wrong act and during that period, she was going through her menstruation period. She has also stated that forcible sexual intercourse was committed by the applicant and thereafter she along with her cattle came back home at about 7.00 P.M. 4 6 PW3 is mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that she asked her daughter as to why she got late on which she did not reply. Her daughter refused to have food. PW3 has stated that the prosecutrix had not taken food properly for 2-3 days and on asking the prosecutrix, she told her that on that day, when she returned late after grazing the cattle, applicant ravished her at place Dharu when she was grazing the cattle. PW3 has further deposed that after 2-3 days she narrated this incident to her husband. 7 The prosecutrix in her cross-examination had admitted that she did not cry when the applicant ravished her. She has stated that since she did not feel to cry, therefore, she did not cry. 8 Perusal of statement of the prosecutrix Ext. PW1/C recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. shows that she has stated that when the applicant was ravishing her she was crying, however her voice was not heard as nobody was there on the spot. Further in her statement, Ext. PW1/C, she has stated that after the said incident, she along with her cattle came back and she was so frightened that she did not disclose this incident to anyone. She has further stated that she disclosed to 5 her mother after enquiring repeatedly on 7.8.2021 about the incident of 30.7.2021. After hearing the same, her mother started crying and on 9.8.2021, she disclosed the incident to father of the prosecutrix. 9 Statement of father of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW2/A, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., would go to show that on 9.8.2021 in the morning his wife told him that on 30.7.2021 when the victim had gone to graze cattle in the forest and on her return, she told that at about 7.00 P.M. in the evening, applicant came and he lifted her and took her towards the forest, where he ravished her against her wishes. His daughter was frightened and on that account his daughter disclosed the said incident to her mother on 7.8.2021. 10 Even the statement of PW7 Dr. Kanika Mahajan, goes to reveal that there is nothing to suggest recent forceful intercourse with the victim. In her cross-examination, she has stated that there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had taken place with the victim within last ten days prior to her medical examination. In MLC, Ext. PW7/B, it has been opined that there is nothing to suggest that there is recent forcible sexual intercourse. 6 11 For the adjudication of the present application, there seems to be variation in the statement of prosecutrix and her mother and father. 12 The prosecutrix has categorically stated in her deposition that after the said incident which occurred on 30.7.2021 she came back home at about 7.00 P.M. and she narrated the entire incident to her mother in the evening hours, whereas while making statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. she has stated she disclosed occurrence on 7.8.2021 and thereafter her mother informed her father on 9.8.2021. The prosecutrix in her deposition has also deposed that she did not feel to cry, however Ext. PW1/C shows that she has stated that she was crying, however nobody was there to hear her cries. 13 Taking into consideration what has been observed above, the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of discretion for suspension of sentence imposed by the learned court below by creating doubt about prosecution story. 14 Therefore, faced with the situation, without commenting upon the merits of the entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage, substantial sentence 7 imposed upon the applicant deserves to be suspended as the final hearing in the appeal may take some time. 15 In view of above, substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant is suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, undertaking therein to appear before the Court as and when directed to do so and also to surrender in case of dismissal of the appeal. Bail bonds so furnished shall be transmitted by the Trial Court to this Court for placing on record. 16 Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant application. 17 Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall not insist for production of certified copy of order, rather Trial Court 8 shall verify passing of this order from the Web-page of the High Court. 18 Application is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) 21.11.2025 Judge (pankaj)