Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CRMP No.4337 of 2025 in
Cr. Appeal (C-DB) No.17 of 2025
Reserved on: 20.03.2026
.
Date of decision: 17.04.2026
Dinesh Kumar. ...Appellant/Applicant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the appellant/applicant : Mr. T.R. Jain, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate
General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
This application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal. The applicant/appellant is undergoing sentence imposed for offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("POCSO Act") and Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of FIR No.43/2024 dated 04.05.2024 registered at Police Station Jhakri, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla. Vide judgment dated 29.07.2025 and order dated 30.07.2025, Additional 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:39:40 :::CIS -2- Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of 20 years and to pay a .
fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to of further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code; and to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 rt years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Applicant/appellant remained in custody as an undertrial prisoner for 2 months and, as such, as on date, has undergone about 10 months of imprisonment.
3. It has been submitted that there is fair chance of acquittal of the applicant/appellant, as the prosecution has failed to prove the date of birth of the victim for not producing cogent and reliable evidence. Further that in copy of Parivar Register (Exhibit P-
20/PW-9), there is cutting with respect to date of birth of the victim, which creates doubt about veracity of prosecution case regarding the alleged date of birth of the victim, and therefore, the date of birth ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:39:40 :::CIS -3- mentioned in the school record, tried to be proved by producing a certificate (Exhibit P-3/PW-2) issued by Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Dofda, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, .
District Shimla, indicating date of birth of the victim as 23.12.2008.
4. It has been further submitted that Gram Panchayat, Sanarsa, issued a certificate dated 07.05.2024 (Exhibit P-21/PW-9) of to Police Station Jhakri, stating therein that copy of the Parivar Register had already been issued to the Police, but date of birth rt certificate of the victim would be available in the record of Gram Panchayat, Gopalpur, as original record of the date of birth was maintained there, however, prosecution did not obtain the date of birth of the victim from Gram Panchayat, Gopalpur, which creates doubt about correctness of the date of birth, particularly in view of cutting in the date of birth of the victim in the copy of the Parivar Register (Exhibit P-20/PW-9), issued by Gram Panchayat, Sanarsa.
5. It has been further submitted that, after the incident, victim has been married to someone else, which indicates that she had attained age of 18 years and whereas, according to date of birth proved on record, she would have attained age of 18 years on 23.12.2026, which reflects that date of birth of the victim, as proved on record, is false and, therefore, applicant/appellant is entitled for ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:39:40 :::CIS -4- suspension of sentence, as hearing of the appeal may take place after a considerably long time.
.
6. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that prosecution has not only proved the certificate issued by Principal, GSSS, Dofda, but has also produced on record copy of Matriculation certificate (Exhibit PA), indicating date of birth of the victim as 23.12.2008, which is corroborated by certificate issued by Principal, of GSSS, Dofda. He has further submitted that matriculation certificate was placed on record by filing an application for leading additional rt evidence during trial and, at that time, production of copy of matriculation certificate was not agitated by applicant/appellant. In these circumstances, it is wrong to say that date of birth of the victim has not been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General, referring to Rule 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has stated that the date of birth of the victim has been proved on record as per requirement of provision of the said Act.
6. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further submitted that applicant/appellant has served only about 10 months of his sentence, whereas he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, and the offence is against a ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:39:40 :::CIS -5- minor who, at the time of commission of offence, was about 16 years old and appellant was 25 years old.
.
7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant/appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General, we are of the considered opinion that, at this stage, for the contentions raised on behalf of applicant/appellant, no case for suspension of sentence is made out. Accordingly, the application is of dismissed.
8. Needless to say, the aforesaid observations made in the rt application, shall not have any bearing on the final adjudication of the appeals, as these observations are preliminary in nature by considering the material on record, prima facie, for purpose of suspension of sentence of the applicant.
(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge.
17th April, 2026 (Pardeep) ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 20:39:40 :::CIS