Summary and Analysis of Jamnalal vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Jamnalal vs. State of Rajasthan & Another
(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment involves the following legal provisions:

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act):
  *Section 3/4(2)*: Punishment for penetrative sexual assault on a child.
  Section 29 & 30: Presumption of guilt against the accused unless disproven.
  Section 42: Overrides Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions if the same act is punishable under POCSO.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 376(3): Punishment for rape of a girl below 16 years.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 389: Criteria for suspending sentence and granting bail during appeal.

• Juvenile Justice Act, 2015:
  Section 94: Procedure for determining the age of a child.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Jamnalal (father of the victim).
  Respondents: State of Rajasthan & Accused (Respondent No. 2).

• Conviction:
  Respondent No. 2 was convicted by the Trial Court for raping a minor girl (aged 14 years) under *Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act* and Section 376(3) IPC.
  Sentence: 20 years rigorous imprisonment + ₹50,000 fine.

• High Court Order:
  Suspended the sentence and granted bail to Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of his appeal.

• Supreme Court Appeal:
  Challenged the bail order, citing flawed reasoning and the accused’s criminal antecedents.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background

The accused (Respondent No. 2) was convicted for raping a minor girl who had gone to a field to defecate. He threatened her at gunpoint, took her to a nearby house, and raped her. The victim promptly reported the incident, leading to an FIR. Medical evidence noted no visible injuries but confirmed her hymen was "old torn healed," though the final Forensic Science Lab (FSL) and DNA reports were not submitted during the trial.

High Court’s Flawed Bail Reasoning

The High Court suspended the accused’s sentence and granted bail based on:

1. Absence of medical evidence confirming sexual assault.

2. Non-availability of FSL/DNA reports.

3. Unlikelihood of the victim going outdoors to defecate despite having a toilet at home.

4. Expected delays in the appeal’s disposal.

Supreme Court’s Criticism

The Supreme Court overturned the bail order, declaring the High Court’s reasoning legally untenable:

• Medical Evidence ≠ Absence of Crime: Lack of injuries does not disprove rape. The victim’s testimony was consistent and corroborated by her parents.

• FSL/DNA Reports Are Corroborative, Not Conclusive: Their absence does not weaken the prosecution’s case. The State later confirmed the FSL report detected the accused’s semen on the victim’s clothes.

• Victim-Blaming Logic Erroneous: Questioning the victim’s conduct (using an outdoor toilet) was speculative and irrelevant.

• Ignored Presumption of Guilt: Under Sections 29 & 30 of POCSO Act, the accused bears the burden to disprove guilt.

• Criminal Antecedents Overlooked: The accused had 11 prior criminal cases (5 acquittals, 6 pending), which the High Court ignored.

Legal Principles Reaffirmed

• Section 389 CrPC (Suspension of Sentence): Bail after conviction requires "palpable evidence" showing the convict has a "fair chance of acquittal." The High Court must examine the trial record for glaring flaws, not re-appreciate evidence.

• Bail in Heinous Crimes: For offences like rape of minors, courts must consider:
  Gravity of the crime.
  Criminal history of the accused.
  Societal impact of releasing the convict (Vijay Kumar v. Narendra precedent applied).

Final Order

1. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order.

2. Respondent No. 2 was directed to surrender by August 30, 2025, failing which he would be arrested.

3. Observations were strictly limited to the bail issue, not the main appeal’s merits.

Key Takeaway:
The Supreme Court emphasized that bail after conviction in POCSO cases demands rigorous scrutiny. Suspending sentences based on conjectural reasoning—especially when the accused has a criminal history—undermines justice for child victims. The ruling reinforces that victim testimony, coupled with statutory presumptions under POCSO, can sustain convictions even without forensic corroboration.