Rajasthan HC Rejects Sentence Suspension in POCSO Appeal Case
Rajasthan HC Rejects Sentence Suspension in POCSO Appeal Case Date of Order: 13.02.2026 The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, recently dealt with a significant suspension of sentence application filed by an accused convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case arose from D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 2047/2024, filed along with a criminal appeal by the accused Vishnu @ Vikram, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Court, POCSO Act, Dausa. The conviction was primarily under Sections 5(l)(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, along with alternative provisions of the Indian Penal Code, for serious allegations involving a minor victim. The applicant approached the High Court seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The defence argued that the trial court had wrongly treated the victim as being below eleven years of age without sufficient evidence, and further contended that the allegations of rape were not medically corroborated. It was also submitted that there existed prior enmity between the parties, which allegedly resulted in false implication. On these grounds, the counsel requested the Court to grant relief and suspend the sentence until the appeal was decided. The State strongly opposed the plea, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the material evidence available on record. Upon hearing both sides, the Division Bench carefully examined the trial court judgment dated 20.03.2024. The Court noted that the victim’s age had been determined based on the birth certificate (Exhibit P-16), which showed that she was below eleven years at the time of the offence. Further, the victim’s testimony as PW-2 contained specific allegations of repeated sexual assault. Importantly, forensic evidence played a crucial role, as the DNA profile obtained from semen found on the victim’s clothing matched with the DNA sample of the accused, strengthening the prosecution’s case. Considering the gravity of the accusations, the age of the victim, and the supporting forensic material, the High Court held that this was not a fit case for granting suspension of sentence. The Bench observed that the nature of evidence and seriousness of the offence weighed against the applicant. Consequently, the application for suspension of sentence was dismissed, and the accused was directed to continue serving the sentence awarded by the trial court. This order highlights the cautious approach adopted by courts in cases involving offences against children, especially where strong testimonial and scientific evidence is available. It reiterates that suspension of sentence in serious POCSO convictions is not granted as a matter of routine and depends heavily on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and the overall circumstances of the case.
Rajasthan High Court Allows Re-Medical Examination in Police Telecommunication Operator Recruitment Due to Weight Discrepancy
Rajasthan High Court Allows Re-Medical Examination in Police Telecommunication Operator Recruitment Due to Weight Discrepancy The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1612/2026, dealt with an important issue concerning recruitment eligibility and medical assessment in the police telecommunication operator recruitment process. The petitioner, Anushka Sonwal, had applied for the post of Constable Police Telecommunication Operator under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.04.2025. She claimed that she had secured a suitable position in the merit list and belonged to the SC Female category, fulfilling all required qualifications for the post. However, during the Physical Measurement Test, she was declared ineligible on the ground that her recorded weight was 43.30 kg, which was below the prescribed minimum requirement of 47.5 kg. The petitioner challenged the disqualification by producing a health certificate issued shortly after the rejection by a Medical Officer from a Government Hospital at Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, which certified her weight as 48 kg. The petitioner argued that there was a clear discrepancy between the weight measurements taken by two different authorities, and therefore she sought an opportunity for re-medical examination by an independent medical board. The counsel submitted that a fresh assessment by experts at AIIMS would help resolve the factual dispute regarding her eligibility. While considering the matter, the High Court observed that writ jurisdiction is generally not invoked in cases involving disputed questions of fact, particularly those related to physical measurements or medical fitness. Nevertheless, the Court took note of the special circumstances of the case, namely that a government medical officer had issued a certificate indicating that the petitioner met the prescribed weight requirement within a short span of time after she was declared ineligible. Taking a balanced approach, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to undergo a fresh medical examination by a Medical Board to be constituted by AIIMS, Jodhpur. The order directed that the petitioner must submit an application within seven days along with a demand draft of Rs. 10,000 in favour of the Superintendent of AIIMS, Jodhpur, following which the medical board would assess her weight within a stipulated period. The Court further clarified that if the AIIMS medical experts certify that the petitioner’s weight is 48 kg or more, she would be entitled to submit a representation before the concerned recruitment authorities, who must then consider her case strictly in accordance with law. Importantly, the Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the recruitment dispute and had only provided a procedural remedy to resolve the factual inconsistency. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these directions, leaving the final decision to the competent authorities based on the outcome of the medical examination.
Section 17-B Industrial Disputes Act: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Workman Entitlement to Last Drawn Wages, Not Minimum Wages During Pendency
Section 17-B Industrial Disputes Act: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Workman Entitlement to Last Drawn Wages, Not Minimum Wages During Pendency The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 113/2025, delivered an important ruling clarifying the scope of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the entitlement of a workman to wages during the pendency of litigation. The case arose from a dispute involving the University of Rajasthan and a workman, where the primary issue was whether a workman is entitled to minimum wages or only the last drawn wages while the employer’s challenge to a Labour Court award is pending before the High Court. The Court examined earlier precedents and statutory provisions to determine the correct interpretation of the law. The Bench observed that the controversy was no longer res integra because earlier Division Bench decisions had already settled that during the pendency of proceedings, the workman is entitled to wages based on the last drawn salary rather than revised pay scales or enhanced minimum wages. The Court relied on prior judgments, including cases relating to Gram Panchayat Manoharpura and other authorities, which held that the purpose of Section 17-B is to provide subsistence support to the workman so that he does not suffer financial hardship while defending litigation. This payment acts as a safeguard against starvation but does not create a right to increased or revised wages. While the respondent argued that minimum wages fixed by the State should be treated as maintenance allowance, the Court rejected this interpretation. Referring to judicial precedents, the Bench clarified that Section 17-B grants a statutory right to receive “full wages last drawn,” and although constitutional courts may in exceptional circumstances grant a higher amount in the interest of justice, such directions remain outside the strict framework of Section 17-B. Therefore, equating minimum wages with maintenance allowance was found to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Bench held that minimum wages apply only to persons who are actually employed and working in an industry. A workman whose termination is under challenge and who is not presently in service cannot claim minimum wages merely because litigation is pending. Instead, during this period of non-employment, the legal mechanism available is subsistence allowance under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. This distinction was crucial in setting aside the Single Judge’s direction that required payment of minimum wages during the pendency of the writ petition. Consequently, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and modified the earlier order. It ruled that the employer must continue to pay the workman the full wages last drawn, along with any admissible maintenance allowance, until the main petition is finally decided. However, payment of revised minimum wages or increments during this period was held to be beyond the scope of Section 17-B. The Court also requested expeditious disposal of the pending petition before the Single Judge to ensure timely resolution of the dispute. Overall, the judgment reinforces a consistent judicial approach that Section 17-B is a protective provision intended to sustain a workman during litigation but not to enhance his financial entitlement beyond the last drawn wages. By distinguishing between subsistence allowance and minimum wages, the Rajasthan High Court clarified the limits of judicial discretion and ensured that the statutory framework of the Industrial Disputes Act is interpreted strictly while still balancing the interests of both employers and employees. Bhuvnesh Kumar GoyalAdvocate in Jaipur High Court
Call: 7300056080
Email: advocatebhuvneshgoyal@gmail.com
Office: 109, Fortune Heights, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001