The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said casting doubt upon a finding returned by the trial court when it isn’t within immediate purview of the High Court, cannot be justified, as it set aside an order to suspend a 20-year-jail term awarded to an accused in sexual assault case of a minor girl.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra said when an accused person applies to the appellate court for suspension of sentence and succeeds in getting the court to make an order in his favour, what gets stayed is only the execution of the sentence and nothing more, the sentence remains and is only, not acted upon.
"In suspending the sentence, there has to be a recording of reasons, which, of course, can only be possible after due consideration," the bench said.
The minor victim's mother contended suspension of sentence is the exception and not the rule.
Her counsel assailed the facts considered by the Gujarat High Court that the victim had run away with the accused and hence commenced a physical relationship between the two.
The counsel said this was contrary to the record and the findings of the trial court; instead, they met first time in 2019 when the victim was only eleven years of age, and he has been harassing her since then.
Further, the counsel said the finding regarding the proof of age of the victim being suspect, was contrary to law.
The counsel made a reference to Sections 34 of the POCSO Act and 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Allowing the appeal, the court directed the accused Jigresh Kumar alias Jigo to surrender before the competent authority forthwith. It also clarified that if the appeal pending before the High Court is not heard in eighteen months, he would be at liberty to approach the High Court seeking regular bail.
Examining correctness of the order on suspension of sentence, the bench said the accused has been convicted by the trial court.
In the trial court's conclusion necessarily then, the victim had to be a minor, it pointed out.
"Whether or not the finding regarding the age of the victim is correct or not, or the manner in which was sought to be proved before the trial court, was in accordance with the law or not, is a question that is open for consideration in the jurisdiction under Section 374 CrPC as may be provided therein, and not under Section 389 CrPC," Justice Karol highlighted in April 21, 2025 judgment authored by him on behalf of the bench.
The bench also said that till and such time, the finding of the trial court is examined independently by the High Court, and proven to be incorrect, it has to be taken as the position in law.
The court opined that the High Court ought not to have suspended the sentence as was imposed by the trial court, as at the present moment, it is proven that the accused has committed the offences for which he stands convicted, subject to confirmation or setting aside by the High Court in the pending appeal.