Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arhant Janardan Sunatkari, a 19-year-old student, was convicted by the trial court for committing rape repeatedly on the same woman, an offense under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000. Additionally, as the victim was a minor, he was convicted under Section 3(a)(c) punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000. He was also convicted under Sections 5(1)(n) and 6 of POCSO and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000, and under Section 354 IPC with five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse it. The facts of the case are distinctive: the victim is the appellant's first cousin sister, and at the relevant time in September 2017, she was 15 years old and living in the house of her paternal uncle. The victim's friend and class teacher testified that the victim disclosed the sexual harassment by her cousin brother. The appellant, in these proceedings, seeks suspension of the impugned sentence and enlargement on bail. The court, considering the distinctive facts and that the appellant did not misuse bail during trial, allowed the appeal and suspended the sentence, granting bail to the appellant pending the final hearing of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal - Section 389 CrPC - Distinctive Facts - The appellant, a 19-year-old student, was convicted for repeated rape of his minor first cousin sister and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The court considered that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse it, and the facts were distinctive. Held that sentence can be suspended and appellant enlarged on bail pending appeal (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence of the appellant, convicted under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 3(a)(c), 4, 5(1)(n), 6 of POCSO Act, should be suspended and the appellant enlarged on bail pending appeal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the appeal and suspended the impugned sentence, directing that the appellant be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties, pending the final hearing of the appeal.
Law Points
- Suspension of sentence pending appeal
- Section 389 CrPC
- POCSO Act
- Section 376(2)(n) IPC
- Section 354 IPC
- concurrent sentences
- bail pending appeal
- no misuse of bail
- distinctive facts
