Court Observes Appellate Court Should Not Re-appreciate Evidence at Suspension Stage; Rejects Parity Plea Raised With Co-Accused
Jaipur: The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed an application seeking suspension of sentence filed by Umaro @ Namrao, who was convicted in a serious offences case involving provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhuwan Goyal dismissed the application on 08 October 2026, holding that considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the findings recorded by the trial court, the testimony of the victim and DNA evidence, no ground was made out for suspension of sentence. The order was passed in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 2232/2025 arising out of D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 180/2025.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Umaro @ Namrao, was convicted by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, No. 2, Sikar vide judgment dated 27.02.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 76/2022 (196/2022).
The conviction was recorded for offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The trial court awarded different sentences for each offence, with the substantive sentences directed to run concurrently. The applicant thereafter preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court and during pendency of the appeal filed an application seeking suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Conviction and Sentences Awarded by Trial Court
The applicant was convicted and sentenced as follows:
Section 363 IPC
- Seven years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹5,000/-;
- In default, three months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 366 IPC
- Ten years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹10,000/-;
- In default, six months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 366-A IPC
- Ten years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹10,000/-;
- In default, six months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 344 IPC
- Three years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹3,000/-;
- In default, one month additional simple imprisonment.
Section 368 IPC
- Seven years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹5,000/-;
- In default, three months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 370 IPC
- Ten years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹10,000/-;
- In default, six months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act
- Twenty years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹20,000/-;
- In default, one year additional simple imprisonment.
Section 376(3) IPC
- Twenty years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹20,000/-;
- In default, one year additional simple imprisonment.
Section 376-DA IPC read with Section 5(g)/6 and Section 16/17 POCSO Act
- Life imprisonment till remainder of natural life;
- Fine of ₹50,000/-;
- In default, one year additional simple imprisonment.
Section 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act
- Twenty years rigorous imprisonment;
- Fine of ₹20,000/-;
- In default, one year additional simple imprisonment.
The trial court directed that all substantive sentences would run concurrently.
Arguments Raised by Applicant
The applicant sought suspension of sentence primarily on the following grounds:
1. Delay in Registration of FIR
The counsel for the applicant argued that there was an inordinate delay in registration of the FIR, which created doubt regarding the prosecution case.
2. Challenge Regarding Proof of Victim’s Age
It was submitted that the prosecution relied only upon the admission form of the victim in the school to establish her minority.
According to the applicant, the prosecution had concealed other documents including the mark-sheet and birth certificate, which could have shown the actual age of the victim.
3. Plea of Parity With Co-Accused
The applicant further argued that co-accused persons namely:
- Rajendra @ Lagda; and
- Sandeep
had already been granted suspension of sentence by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court vide order dated 01.09.2025. On this basis, the applicant prayed that similar benefit be extended to him.
State Opposes Suspension Application
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that no case was made out for suspension of sentence. The State contended that the conviction was based upon appreciation of evidence by the trial court and that the nature of allegations and evidence did not justify suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal.
High Court Examines Evidence Against Applicant
After hearing both sides, the High Court considered the material available on record. The Court noted that the learned trial court, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence, had recorded a finding that the victim was a juvenile and was below 16 years of age on the first date when she was subjected to the offence of rape. The High Court observed that at the stage of considering suspension of sentence, it found no reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the age of the victim.
Victim’s Testimony and DNA Evidence Considered Significant
The High Court further noted that the victim, while appearing as PW-1, had levelled specific allegations against the applicant regarding commission of rape on multiple occasions.
The Court also took note of the fact that:
- The victim became pregnant due to the alleged offence; and
- The DNA profile obtained from the foetus matched with:
- the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the applicant; and
- the blood sample of the juvenile victim.
The Court considered this evidence while examining whether suspension of sentence should be granted during pendency of the appeal.
Court Rejects Parity Argument With Co-Accused
The applicant relied upon the suspension of sentence granted to co-accused persons. However, the High Court examined the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The Court observed that the said order itself recorded that the main accused was the present applicant. Therefore, the Court found that the applicant could not claim parity with the co-accused persons merely because they had been granted suspension of sentence.
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment: Appellate Court Should Not Re-appreciate Evidence at Suspension Stage
The High Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in:
Rajesh Upadhyay vs The State of Bihar and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 5585/2025, decided on 18.12.2025).
The Supreme Court had observed that while considering suspension of sentence under appellate jurisdiction, the appellate court should not re-appreciate evidence or attempt to identify minor loopholes in the prosecution case. The presumption of innocence, which operates during trial, does not continue in the same manner after conviction by the trial court.
High Court’s Findings
After considering the submissions and material on record, the High Court held that:
- The trial court had recorded conviction after appreciating oral and documentary evidence;
- The victim’s testimony contained specific allegations against the applicant;
- DNA evidence connected the applicant with the offence;
- The nature and gravity of allegations were serious;
- No sufficient ground was made out for suspension of sentence.
The Court observed that the applicant’s conviction involved serious offences and that the findings recorded by the trial court did not warrant interference at this stage.
Final Order
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the suspension of sentence application filed by Umaro @ Namrao. The Court held that, considering the nature and gravity of allegations and the evidence relied upon by the trial court, it was not inclined to grant suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Legal Significance of the Order
The order reiterates important principles concerning suspension of sentence applications after conviction:
1. Suspension of Sentence Is Not an Appeal Against Conviction
At the stage of suspension of sentence, the appellate court does not conduct a detailed re-appreciation of evidence as done during final hearing of the appeal.
2. Conviction Changes the Presumption Position
The Court relied upon the principle that once an accused has been convicted after trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue in the same form as it exists before conviction.
3. DNA Evidence Plays Important Role
Where scientific evidence such as DNA profiling supports the prosecution case, courts may consider it as a significant factor while deciding interim relief.
4. Parity Depends Upon Role of Accused
A co-accused receiving suspension of sentence does not automatically entitle another accused to similar relief. The individual role attributed to each accused and circumstances of the case remain relevant.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court’s order in Umaro @ Namrao vs State of Rajasthan highlights the cautious approach adopted by appellate courts while considering suspension of sentence applications in serious criminal cases involving offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. The Court found that the conviction was supported by the victim’s testimony and DNA evidence connecting the applicant with the offence. The Court also rejected the plea of parity after noting that the applicant was treated as the main accused in the proceedings involving co-accused persons.
By dismissing the suspension application, the High Court reaffirmed that suspension of sentence after conviction is not a routine relief and depends upon the overall circumstances, gravity of allegations, evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court.
Disclaimer: This article is prepared only for general information and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the complete judgment and consult a legal professional before relying upon the information for any specific matter.