The Bombay High Court has suspended the 20-year sentence imposed on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code, observing that the record of evidence reveals significant inconsistencies and that the first medical examination of the child victim did not indicate sexual assault.
The Court held that these aspects give the appellant a “fair chance of success” in the appeal and justified suspension of the sentence pending final adjudication.
- Case Title: Mehtab Aalam Aabid Ali Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Court: Bombay High Court
- Bench: Justice R. M. Joshi
- Date of Judgment: 11 February 2026
- Case Number: Interim Application No. 3589 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 1189 of 2024
Impugned Judgment: POCSO Special Case No. 121 of 2016 (Judgment dated 03 February 2024) - Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:7623
Background of the Case
The interim application before the Bombay High Court was filed by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his criminal appeal.
The appellant had been convicted by the trial court in POCSO Special Case No. 121 of 2016 and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment along with a fine.
The conviction was recorded for offences under Sections 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as well as Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with aggravated rape of a minor.
According to the prosecution case, the incident allegedly occurred on 17 December 2015, when the accused was said to have sexually assaulted a girl aged about five years.
The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the child victim, statements of her sister, and the complaint lodged by the mother.
Following the trial, the Special POCSO Court convicted the accused and imposed the 20-year prison sentence.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court.
Pending the appeal, he moved the present interim application seeking suspension of the sentence.
Defence Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was based on evidence riddled with serious inconsistencies and contradictions, particularly in the statements of the victim, her sister, and the informant (the victim’s mother).
It was contended that the prosecution case initially centered on an alleged incident on 17 December 2015, when the child reportedly returned home crying.
According to the defence, the mother herself admitted that the child was immediately taken to the police station and also to a medical officer for examination on the same day.
However, the medical examination did not indicate that the child had been subjected to sexual assault.
The defence highlighted that no history of sexual assault was recorded at that stage, and no clinical findings supporting such an allegation were observed.
The appellant’s counsel argued that during the trial, the prosecution appeared to improve its case by introducing an allegation that the offence had occurred on 23 December 2015, which, according to the defence, raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
Further, inconsistencies were pointed out regarding the circumstances of the alleged incident. One such discrepancy concerned whether the lights in the house where the alleged assault occurred were on or off, a detail that differed between the statements of the victim and her sister.
The defence also emphasized that the accused had stepped into the witness box and led evidence to demonstrate that there were disputes between the parties, raising the possibility of false implication.
Another factor pressed into service by the defence was the prolonged incarceration of the appellant. It was submitted that he had been in custody for nearly ten years and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the immediate future.
The counsel further argued that the appellant had no criminal antecedents, was unlikely to abscond, and therefore deserved suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
Opposition by the State and the Victim
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, along with counsel for the victim, strongly opposed the grant of bail and suspension of sentence.
They argued that the victim had given a clear account of the manner in which the incident occurred and had identified the accused as the perpetrator of the sexual assault.
The prosecution also referred to the findings recorded by the trial court, suggesting that there might have been miscommunication between the child victim and the medical officer during the first examination.
On this basis, it was argued that the absence of medical findings in the initial examination should not undermine the victim’s testimony.
Accordingly, the State and the victim’s counsel sought dismissal of the interim application.
High Court’s Observations on Evidence
Justice R. M. Joshi, while considering the request for suspension of sentence, observed that the Court must assess whether the appellant has a fair chance of success in the appeal.
The Court emphasized that even in prosecutions under the POCSO Act, the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence remains the same — the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Upon examining the material on record, the Court noted that prima facie there appeared to be major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim, her sister, and the informant.
The Court observed:
“Prima facie the evidence on record indicates that there are major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim, her sister, and the informant… The said inconsistencies are material in nature and cannot be brushed aside by way of branding them as insignificant.”
A particularly significant aspect noted by the Court was the first medical examination conducted on the day of the alleged incident.
The Court recorded that when the child was taken for examination on 17 December 2015, no history of sexual assault was recorded, nor did the clinical examination reveal evidence of such assault.
The Court observed:
“Neither any history was given of sexual assault, nor any evidence was found on the clinical examination of the victim to show that she was subjected to any sexual assault.”
Justice Joshi further noted that if the first medical examination ruled out sexual assault, the medical evidence later introduced during trial could be seriously challenged during the hearing of the appeal.
The Court therefore concluded that the appellant had demonstrated substantial grounds that may succeed during appellate scrutiny.
Consideration of Custody Period and Appeal Delay
Another important factor considered by the Court was the length of time the appellant had already spent in custody.
The Court recorded that the accused had been behind bars for nearly ten years, and that the criminal appeal was not likely to be heard in the near future due to the pendency of cases.
Additionally, the Court observed that the appellant had no prior criminal history and was not likely to flee from justice.
These circumstances weighed in favour of granting relief to the appellant pending final disposal of the appeal.
High Court’s Order
After considering the submissions and the material on record, the Bombay High Court allowed the interim application and ordered suspension of the sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Court directed that the substantive sentence imposed by the judgment dated 3 February 2024 in POCSO Special Case No. 121 of 2016 shall remain suspended until the final decision of the appeal.
The Court further ordered that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹15,000 with one surety of the like amount.
However, the Court imposed strict conditions to safeguard the interests of the victim.
The appellant was directed not to contact the victim or her family members in any manner whatsoever. The Court also clarified that any violation of this condition would lead to immediate cancellation of bail.
Observations Limited to Interim Stage
Before concluding, the High Court clarified that the observations made in the order were based only on prima facie consideration for the purpose of deciding the application for suspension of sentence.
The Court stated that these observations shall not influence the final adjudication of the appeal.
The criminal appeal challenging the conviction will now proceed independently and will be decided on its own merits.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
