When a trial in a child-centric prosecution ends in a split verdict — acquittal on the aggravated POCSO count, conviction on a cognate IPC offence — the appellate arithmetic changes. The sentence is shorter, the surviving conviction rests on a narrower factual base, and suspension of sentence pending appeal becomes a realistic first motion. The Madras High Court’s order in Rajasekar @ Raja illustrates the pattern: a 31-year-old convicted under Section 366 IPC for kidnapping a 13-year-old girl, acquitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and enlarged on bail while his appeal awaits hearing.
The prosecution case and the split verdict
The prosecution alleged that on 7 November 2021 the accused, then 31, took a 13-year-old girl away on a false promise of marriage, moving her by auto, bus and train through Melmaruvathur, Tambaram, Chennai and Maraimalai Nagar before she was spotted by her paternal aunt and recovered. The charges spanned Section 366 IPC and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. At trial, the special court convicted him under Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to three years, but acquitted him of the aggravated penetrative sexual assault charge under the POCSO Act.
The suspension motion
With the appeal — Crl. A. No. 1100 of 2026 — instituted, the appellant moved for suspension of the substantive sentence. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar allowed the application, ordering release on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, coupled with monthly appearances before the court unless exemption was sought under the procedural rules. The State’s material, including the Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim, remains to be weighed at the final hearing; the suspension order addressed only the interim question.
| Factor | How it cut in this case |
|---|---|
| Length of sentence | Three years — short enough that an unheard appeal risks becoming infructuous |
| Surviving conviction | Section 366 IPC alone, after acquittal on the 20-year-minimum POCSO count |
| Custody and conduct | Bond with two sureties and monthly attendance secured the appellant's presence |
| Prosecution interest | Preserved — the appeal, and any challenge to the acquittal, proceed untouched |
Suspension of sentence after a split verdict
Split verdicts are common in POCSO-adjacent prosecutions, because the aggravated offences carry distinct and demanding ingredients. Once the graver count falls away at trial, the appellate court assesses suspension against the conviction that actually survives, not the charge-sheet as originally framed. For short and medium sentences, the governing anxiety is docket reality: criminal appeals in the High Courts often take longer than three years to reach hearing, and a convict who serves the whole sentence before acquittal receives a remedy in name only. Conditions — sureties, attendance, travel restraints — are the counterweight that keeps the appellant answerable.
The decision also carries a quieter message for complainants and the prosecution: an acquittal on the POCSO count at trial materially weakens resistance to suspension, which is one more reason why the quality of the trial record — the victim’s statements, age proof, and witness handling — matters long after the verdict is pronounced.
Practice pointer: a suspension application should candidly set out the split verdict, the sentence already undergone, and proposed conditions. Courts respond to applications that make supervision easy — named sureties, fixed appearance dates, and an address verified in advance.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the appellant convicted and acquitted of?
The trial court convicted him under Section 366 IPC — kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel marriage — and sentenced him to three years, while acquitting him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which carries a minimum of twenty years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The appeal against the conviction was pending when the suspension application was decided.
Why does the POCSO acquittal matter to suspension of sentence?
Suspension pending appeal weighs the length of the sentence, the nature of the surviving conviction and the prospect of the appeal being heard before the sentence runs out. A three-year term under Section 366, standing alone after acquittal on the graver charge, is precisely the category where courts lean towards suspension — otherwise the appeal could become infructuous, with the sentence served before it is heard.
What conditions were imposed?
The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, and to appear before the court monthly unless exempted under the applicable procedural rules. Suspension orders under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 — the successor to Section 389 CrPC — routinely carry such attendance disciplines.
Does suspension of sentence mean the conviction is doubted?
Not necessarily. Suspension is an interim arrangement addressing where the convict waits while the appeal is decided; it does not pre-judge the appeal. The conviction under Section 366, and the State's position on the POCSO acquittal, both remain to be tested when the appeal is finally heard.