The Rajasthan High Court has suspended the sentences of two men convicted in a case involving the marriage of a minor, observing that the prosecution evidence raised substantial questions about the sustainability of their convictions. Justice Farjand Ali passed the order on October 14, 2026, while hearing applications connected with pending criminal appeals.
Background
The applications were filed by Shrawan Nath and Mangunath, who had been convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No. 1, Udaipur, through a judgment dated March 25, 2026. The trial court had imposed imprisonment of up to 20 years and a fine of ₹1 lakh under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The appellants argued that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence and that their appeals would take time to be decided. The prosecution opposed the suspension of their sentences.
Examining the evidence, the High Court noted that the testimony of prosecution witness PW-5 and the absence of satisfactory proof of monetary consideration were significant factors. The witness had stated that she was unaware whether she had been sold in exchange for money.
The Court observed:
"The mere existence of a marriage involving a minor, without more, cannot automatically dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove each essential ingredient of the substantive criminal offences alleged against the appellants."
Justice Farjand Ali also emphasised that the allegations required assessment against the evidence available on record, rather than assumptions arising from the circumstances of the marriage. The Court noted:
"The prosecution must stand or fall upon the strength of its own evidence, and the deficiencies apparent in the present case cannot be supplied by speculation or by drawing inferences unsupported by the material on record."
The Court clarified that it was not expressing a final opinion on the merits of the appeals.
Allowing both applications under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the High Court suspended the sentences until the appeals are finally decided.
It ordered the appellants' release on bail upon furnishing personal bonds of ₹50,000 each, with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, subject to specified conditions, including annual appearance before the trial court in January.
