Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharamraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 CRA-2943-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-2943-2020
(DHARAMRAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
8
Gwalior, Dated : 23-04-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ankur Mody, Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No.8479/2020, 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 376(d), 366/34, 344, 377 and
323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, R.I. for
10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, Life
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default R.I. for 6 months respectively vide judgment dated 01.02.2020 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Guna in SPL Case SC
No.200052/2015.
Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the prosecutrix has
been found to be major by the learned trial Court , therefore, the accused/appellant
was acquitted of the charges under Section 363/34 of I.P.C., Section 5(g)(l)/6 of
POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The
prosecutrix in her statement has categorically admitted that she traveled with the
accused/appellant to Kota and from there they traveled to Bundi and thereafter to
Jaipur where they stayed for some time and then they went to Delhi where they also
stayed together for some time. Eventually, she returned from Delhi to Kota and from
where she went to Baran by bus and from where came to Kelwada by tractor and then
came to her parents. It is submitted that there is no evidence as to where the
accused/appellant and prosecutrix stayed at Kota, Bundi, Jaipur or Delhi nor any
witness has been produced to show that any kind of force has been used by the
accused/appellant with the prosecutrix. Evidence of the prosecutrix is suggestive of
the fact that she was all throughout a consenting party. The prosecutrix in her
statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. did not utter a single word
as to the accused/appellant committed offence under Section 377 of I.P.C. with her
but in the statement in court for the first time she made such an allegation and the
2 CRA-2943-2020
learned trial Court without any corroboration has mechanically convicted the
appellant. There was no medical examination report before the Court to suggest
possible rape. The accused/appellant was on bail during the trial. In view of huge
pendency of criminal appeals, final hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time,
therefore, the sentence of the appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.
Mr. Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State has 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.8479/2020
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
t h e 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
Digitally signed by
PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Date: 2021.04.23
17:14:35 +05'30'
