Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hukmaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19397) on 23 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:19397]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 1699/2025
Hukmaram S/o Shri Kevalram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Bhopalgarh, Police Station Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Hadman Ram S/o Bhiya Ram, R/o Sutharo Ka Bass,
Suwana, Asop, District Jodhpur Rural.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/04/2026
1. The instant application for suspension of sentence has been
moved on behalf of the applicant in the matter of judgment
dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge,
POCSO Act, 2012 & Commission for Protection of Child Right
Act, 2005 District Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 34/2022
whereby he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. of 10
years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Sections 376(1)
of IPC & Section 3(4)/1 of POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court
failed to properly appreciate the legal and factual aspects,
resulting in an erroneous finding of guilt. Being the first
appellate court, this Court may reappraise the evidence. It is
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 12:12:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19397] (2 of 5) [SOSA-1699/2025]
further submitted that the appeal will take time for disposal,
the sentence deserves to be suspended.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence. Service has been effected upon the
respondent No.2. However, no one is present on his behalf.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. The distinction between grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC
( corresponding to Section 483 BNSS)and suspension of
sentence under Section 389 CrPC ( corresponding to Section
430 BNSS)is well settled. While the former operates at the
pre-conviction stage, the latter comes into play post-
conviction and requires the appellate court to assess, prima
facie, the sustainability of the conviction and sentence under
challenge.
6. Upon conviction, the presumption of innocence stands
displaced; however, while considering suspension of
sentence, the appellate court is required to evaluate whether
the grounds raised in appeal disclose a substantial and
arguable case. If the material on record suggests that the
findings of the trial court may be debatable, the discretion
under Section 389 CrPC ( corresponding to Section 430
BNSS) can be justifiably invoked.Where the appeal raises
issues which, on prima facie consideration, indicate a
reasonable possibility of success, including reversal or
modification of conviction, the sentence may be suspended
pending adjudication.
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 12:12:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19397] (3 of 5) [SOSA-1699/2025]
7. This Court is guided by the enunciation of law by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Muna Bisoi v. State of Odisha
(February 16, 2026) , wherein it has been held that
prolonged pendency of criminal appeals, not attributable to
the convict, constitutes a valid ground for suspension of
sentence. Reliance has also been placed on Kashmira
Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 , wherein the
Supreme Court deprecated continued incarceration of
convicts for long periods during pendency of appeals,
observing that such practice would amount to a travesty of
justice.
8. It is equally settled that while considering such application,
the appellate court is not required to record conclusive
findings on merits, as that would prejudice the final
adjudication. A prima facie satisfaction regarding the
arguability and substance of the grounds would suffice. The
appellate jurisdiction being a continuation of trial, the entire
evidence remains open to re-appreciation. The court may
ultimately affirm, modify, or set aside the conviction, or alter
the sentence, depending upon the outcome of such re-
evaluation.
9. Additionally, even where conviction is sustained, the nature
of offence or quantum of sentence may warrant
reconsideration at the appellate stage, which further justifies
a liberal approach in appropriate cases. This Court cannot
lose sight of the fact that it is burdened with a large number
of pending criminal appeals, and the likelihood of their early
disposal remains uncertain. In such circumstances,
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 12:12:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19397] (4 of 5) [SOSA-1699/2025]
continued incarceration, despite arguable grounds in appeal,
would not be justified, particularly when delay is not
attributable to the appellant.
10. In the present case, serious contradictions have been noted
by this court in the statement of victim recorded during
investigation marked as Ex.D/2 and the statement recorded
by the Judicial Magistrate marked as Ex.D/1 as well as the
statement recorded on during this trial. In fact, the
statement in Ex.D/1 is exculpatory in nature and she in an
unambiguous and unequivocal terms had stated about
establishing sexual relation at her own free will and volition.
The finding with regard to the age of the victim requires
further close scrutiny in light of the settled principle of law
and Section 94 of JJ Act. The issues raised are significant
and merit consideration. If accepted, they may result in
acquittal. They require proper examination and re-
appreciation of evidence, with a fair possibility of benefit to
the appellant.
11. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 430
BNSS) is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed
by learned trial court, the details of which are provided in
the first para of this order, against the appellant-applicant
named above shall remain suspended till final disposal of the
aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail provided he
executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 12:12:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:48:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19397] (5 of 5) [SOSA-1699/2025]
learned trial Judge and whenever ordered to do so till the
disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he will appear before the trial Court in
the month of January of every year till the
appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant changes the place of
residence, he will give in writing his changed
address to the trial Court as well as to the
counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their
address(s), they will give in writing their
changed address to the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of
the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as
Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-
applicant was tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also
be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall
not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to
pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said
accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the
learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for
cancellation of bail.
(FARJAND ALI),J
84-poojatak/-
(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 12:12:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:48:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
