Delhi High Court - Orders
Satbir Singh Ratti vs State Nct Of Delhi on 17 April, 2026
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 1099/2025
SATBIR SINGH RATTI
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arhum Sayeed, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Mr. Rahil Ahmed,
Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI
Chetan
Mr. Sarthak Mudgil and Mr. Bhairabi
Das, Advocates for Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
ORDER
% 17.04.2026
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1664/2025
1. This is an application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), seeking suspension of the sentence of the accused in Sessions Case no. 150/2018 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, (SC-RC), West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Vide the judgement dated 29.11.2024, the accused This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:37:29 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 384, 506(II) IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 24.03.2025, he has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore, the maximum period of imprisonment is 10 years.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the out of the period of 10 years, the appellant has served more than 05 years and 07 months and therefore, on this ground, the sentence is liable to be suspended. It is also pointed out that the case of rape that has been put forward by the victim can never be believed. It is quite apparent and obvious from the materials on record that it was a consensual relationship between the parties. Thereafter, the appellant found out that the victim was in a relationship with another man, which resulted in the parties falling out. There was never any sexual harassment or sexual abuse as alleged by the victim. On the other hand, it is a case of extortion by This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:37:29 the victim and the materials on record will clearly show that the testimony of the victim cannot be relied on, and that she is not a credible witness.
3. It is also pointed out that the appellant has already served a period of 05 years for the offences punishable under Sections 384, and 506(II) IPC and what remains is only the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, for which the materials on record is highly unsatisfactory. Therefore, it is a fit case in which the sentence is liable to be suspended.
4. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as by the learned counsel for the victim who submit that the materials on record clearly establish the offences alleged against the appellant/accused and the prosecution case stands substantiated by the said version. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the victim has more or less stood by the case while she was examined before the Court.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:37:29
5. The learned counsel for the victim also points out that the electronic evidence coupled with the transcript that has been produced, also establishes the prosecution case and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the victim whose testimony is of sterling quality.
6. Heard both sides.
7. I was taken through Exhibit PW1/A FIS/FIR, Exhibit PW1/C, the 164 statement of the victim. The victim more or less stands her version in the box. The question whether PW1 is a credible witness and whether there are any improvements or any material omissions amounting to contradictions which has affected the prosecution case, is a matter that needs to be considered by this Court when the appeal is considered on merits.
8. It is well settled that while considering an application for suspension of sentence, the appellate court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders it prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:37:29 considered by the trial court and conclusions arrived at, the appellate court, while exercising its power for suspension of sentence, cannot re-assess or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail. (See Preet Pal Singh vs State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645).
9. No patent infirmity seen in the impugned judgment. This is not a fit case in which the discretion and jurisdiction of the Court for suspending the sentence is liable to be invoked.
10. Hence, the application is dismissed.
CRL.A. 1099/2025 List on 29.07.2026.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J APRIL 17, 2026 p'ma This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 22:37:29