IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No.4454 2025 in Cr.Appeal No. 674 of 2024 Reserved on 16.12.2025 Date of Decision: 22. 12.2025 __________________________________ Harinder Kumar ….Applicant. Versus State of H.P. …….Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General ___________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge This order shall dispose off an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 430 of Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and for his enlargement on bail. 2. The applicant has approached this Court by filing the appeal against the judgment of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2025:HHC:44957 ) conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2024 whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. (for short ‘IPC’) and in default to pay the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He has also been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year under Section 452 of I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The applicant /convict has been sentenced under Section 506 of I.P.C to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. 3. As per the application filed by the applicant, it has been stated that the applicant has got a strong prima-facie and arguable case in his favour. Further, it has been stated that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the applicant by 3( 2025:HHC:44957 ) leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of the impugned sentence is liable to be suspended and the applicant is required to be released on bail. The applicant has further stated that he shall not jump over the bail in case the same is granted. It has been stated that the present applicant was 19 years old boy at the time of commission of the offence and he is behind the bars since 26.11.2024. 4. The respondent-State has filed a detailed reply opposing the aforesaid application and it has been stated that the applicant does not deserve any leniency and order of sentence should not be suspended since the applicant has committed henious offence. It has further been submitted in the reply that the applicant has committed wrong act with the victim and the learned Court below, after 4( 2025:HHC:44957 ) appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, has rightly convicted the applicant under the provisions of Sections 376,452 and 506 I.P.C and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. It has also been stated that as per the custody certificate, the applicant has undergone only one year 28 days sentence. 5. We have heard Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. J.S. Guleria,learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken this Court to the vital statements of the prosecution witnesses including the victim. The victim has appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and she stated that she had neither seen the accused nor met him ever before. The applicant met her on 31.12.2019 and gave his mobile phone to her. She 5( 2025:HHC:44957 ) stated that she used to call the applicant on his mobile number from mobile of her mother during the period from December 2019 to February, 2020. She stated that on account of ailment of her mother, she was taken to medical College Tanda for her treatment and the grandmother of the victim used to reside with them and she oftenly go to her house. As per the testimony of this witness on 27.02.2020, the present applicant handed over to her his mobile phone and she used to chat with the applicant with that mobile phone. She deposed that on 12.03.2020, when grand-mother of the victim had left her home and she was cooking meal in the kitchen, then at about 8.00 p.m., she found that the applicant was standing behind the door and he forcibly committed wrong act with her despite her resistance. She stated that on 15.04.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., her mother had seen her while chatting with applicant. When her mother inquired that with 6( 2025:HHC:44957 ) whom she was talking earlier, she did not disclose the fact to her mother out of fear. However, on persistence, the victim had disclosed the entire incident to her mother that the applicant had committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the cross- examination, whereby the victim admitted that during the period when her parents had gone to Tanda, her brother and sister were residing in the house. The victim has admitted that her grand mother used to reside at home. In the cross examination, she has admitted that she used to talk with the applicant on mobile phone. Further, she has admitted that she was caught by her mother while talking to the accused. Victim had stated her age 15 years while appearing as witness. 7( 2025:HHC:44957 ) 8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the mother of the victim as PW-2. She stated that the present applicant came to their house and forcibly took the victim to the bed and committed a wrongful act. She further stated that the accused/applicant repeated the alleged act with the victim on three to four occasions. PW-2 admitted that the victim used to chat with the applicant on a mobile phone. 9. PW-11 Dr. Meenakshi, Medical OfÏcer, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, District Mandi, stated that on examination of victim, no injury, wound or scratch mark were found anywhere on her body. Neither any injury nor any wound was found present on her internal examination. It is further stated by PW-11 that her hymen was raptured. In the cross-examination, she stated that there was no medical evidence suggesting sexual intercourse and 8( 2025:HHC:44957 ) she had opined in this regard on the basis of history given. The MLC of the applicant is Ext.PW7/B which shows that the age of the applicant was 19 years at the time of the commission of the offence. 10. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, a prima-facie case is made out for suspension of sentence and his enlargement on bail at this stage. This Court is only dealing with the application for the suspension of sentence and the merits of the entire case in depth and detail, shall be considered at the time of the final arguments of main appeal. 11. 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 the prosecution story. 9( 2025:HHC:44957 ) 12. Therefore, faced with the situation, without commenting upon the merits of the entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage, substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant deserves to be suspended as the final hearing in the appeal may take some time. 13. In view of above, the application is allowed and the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant by Court below 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 Court below 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 by the applicant shall be transmitted by the Court below to this Court for placing on record. 10( 2025:HHC:44957 ) 14. 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 herein- above, which are only for the purpose of determination of the instant application. 15 Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the Court below and the Court below shall not insist for production of certified copy of order, rather the Court below shall verify passing of this order from the Web-page of the High Court. ( Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge December 22, 2025(veena) VEENA SHARMA Digitally signed by VEENA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22 17:24:38 +0530