$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.A. 1432/2019

GAYTRI @ RESHMA ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Kawalpreet Singh and Mr. Vikas
Saini, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajini Gupta, APP for the State.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

ORDER
% 06.03.2020

ADMIT.

List in due course in the category of ‘Regulars’ as per the year
of its seniority.

Crl. M.(Bail) No. 2195/2019 (for suspension of sentence)
The present application has been filed by the appellant under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency
of the appeal.

The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the
impugned judgment dated 19.11.2019 and order on sentence dated
25.11.2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections
342 IPC, 354 IPC read with Section 109 IPC and under Section 8 read
with Section 17 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced as follows:

(i) For offence under Section 8 read with Section 17 of
POCSO Act, the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of
Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, simple
imprisonment for one month. Fine not paid.

(ii) For offence under Section 342 IPC, the convict is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three months.

(iii) The ingredients of Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section
354 IPC are pari-materia. Since a substantive
punishment has been awarded under Section 8 of the
POCSO Act, the convict is not being awarded any
substantial punishment under Sections 354/109 IPC.

As per the nominal roll, the unexpired portion of sentence of
the appellant is two years and nine months.

At this stage, no grounds for suspension of sentence are made
out. The application is hence dismissed.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 06, 2020
AK