Himachal Pradesh HC Suspends POCSO Sentence as Victim and Parents Claim Adulthood and Consent

In a pivotal intervention for criminal appellate jurisprudence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has suspended a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence after the victim and her parents contradicted the prosecution's minority claim and acknowledged the consensual nature of the relationship.

A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bhupesh Sharma granted relief to the convict, emphasizing that the victim's hostile testimony regarding her age and the trial court's own finding of a romantic relationship created a strong arguable case for acquittal.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court scrutinised the trial record, noting that despite the victim being declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination, she refused to admit the filing of the complaint and asserted she was above 18 years at the time of the incident. The Court further noted the trial court's own observation that the incident occurred in the context of a romantic relationship.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...admission on the part of victim as well as her parents that on 8.3.2024 she was of above 18 years of age, there is a strong reason in favour of the applicant, even if considered to be of violation of victim, present case does not fall under the POCSO."

The Court has the following directions:
"substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, undertaking therein to appear in Court as and when directed to do so, and to surrender to serve the remaining sentence in case appeal is dismissed. Applicant shall also not indulge in illegal activity, much less in commission of similar nature of offence and in case breach of this condition, suspension of sentence of the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled."

Background

The applicant was originally convicted by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 20-ST(P)/7 of 2024 for offences under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to 3 years and 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had sexually assaulted a 17-year-old girl. However, during the trial, the victim resiled from her FIR statement, claiming no such incident occurred and that she was over 18 years old on the date of the incident. Her parents (PW-2 and PW-3) also failed to support the prosecution's narrative regarding her age. The applicant argued that the conviction was based solely on medical evidence, which should only serve as corroborative and not substantive evidence. Finding that an arguable case was made out, the High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr.MP No. 2303 of 2026 in Cr. Appeal (C-DB) No. 73 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:47529
Case Title: Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocate, vice Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 11154