Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwat Raikwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 CRA-146-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-146-2020
(BHAGWAT RAIKWAR Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
26
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-04-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Mohammad Ali, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, Government Advocate with Mr. Siddharth
Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.136/2020, which is the first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 366 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 5(1) & 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years
with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 14 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default
of payment of fine R.I. for 3 months and R.I. for 3 months respectively vide
judgment dated 05.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Tikamgarh, District Tikamgarh in Special Sessions Trial No.400045/2016.
Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that not only the
prosecutrix (PW-1) has not supported the case of prosecution but the mother
Bhuwani @ Bhuwanbai (PW-3) and father Parmanand Raikwar (PW-2) of the
prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution case. The prosecutrix
has claimed her age during her deposition before the Court on 04.05.2017 as
19 years whereas the date of incident is 18.04.2016.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecutrix was
major on the date of incident which is also evident from the testimony of
Ramprakash Purohit (PW-7), Headmaster of Kamla Bal Vidya Mandir,
Chandera who has stated that the prosecutrix was admitted to their School in
Class-2 on 01.07.2009 and that her date of birth was recorded on the basis of
the entry made by her parents in the admission form. The prosecutrix has also
in her statement stated that she was initially admitted to Class-1 in the
2 CRA-146-2020
Government Primary School, Jakhnera Tal Chandera. Neither the admission
form submitted by the parents of the prosecutrix in that School has been
produced nor the Headmaster of that School has been examined as a witness.
Learned counsel also referred the statement of Dr. Rekha Badgaiya (PW-11)
the Radiologist who conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix and
has deposed before the Court that as per Ex.P-37 the age of the prosecutrix
was between 17 and 19 years. The accused was on bail pending trial. In view
of huge pendency of criminal appeals, final hearing of this appeal is likely to
take long time.
Mr. A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Government Advocate and Mr.
Siddharth Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State have
opposed the bail application.
Upon consideration of rival submissions and taking into consideration
all the evidence on record and all the attending circumstances but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to
allow I.A.No.136/2020 and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant.
It is directed that the remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon
the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be enlarged on bail upon his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand
Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Court.
The jail authorities shall have the appellant checked by the jail doctor to
ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if he is, he shall be
sent to the nearest hospital designated by the state for treatment. If not, he
shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.
C.C. as per rules.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
psm
Digitally signed by
PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Date: 2021.04.23
14:22:57 +05'30'
