Salman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1564 MP

                              (1)



        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                Criminal Appeal No.493/2020
            (Salman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others)

Indore, Dated : 24.04.2021

Heard through Video Conferencing.

     Shri Nilesh Dave, Advocate for the appellant.

     Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, Government Advocate for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.1054/2021 an application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under Sections

376, 450, 506-II of IPC, Sections 3(A)/4 of POCSO Act and

Sections 3(1)(B), 3(2)(v) and 3(2) (V-A) of the SC/ST Act

and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for 10 years with fine

of Rs.1,500/-, RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 2

years with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 7 years with fine of

Rs.1,000/-, RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, Life

Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,500/- and RI for 10 years

with fine of Rs.1,500/- respectively with default stipulations

vide judgment dated 05.12.2019 passed in Spl. S.T.

No.14/2016 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Alirajpur.

Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant

has argued that as per the first version of the prosecutrix as

disclosed in the FIR, the accused-appellant allegedly

committed rape upon her on 12th of March 2016 but the FIR

was lodged belatedly on 12th of July, 2016. Learned

counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the version

of the prosecutrix due to rape with her on 12th of March,

2016, she conceived and the duration of pregnancy which

she was carrying when FIR was lodged was about four

months. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn

attention of this Court towards the findings recorded by the

learned trial Court itself in paragraph-27 of the impugned

judgment with reference to the statement of Dr. Sweta

Oharia PW-5 who has stated that on 12th of July, 2016

when the prosecutrix was medically examined by her, she

in fact was carrying pregnancy of the duration of 24-26

weeks. Reference was also made to the statement of Dr.

Devendra Sonhare PW-6 Radiologist, who has deposed

that when the prosecutrix was examined by him on 15th of

July, 2016, she was carrying pregnancy of 28 weeks and 6

days. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

prosecutrix gave birth to a female child on 7th of

September, 2016 and as per the DNA report Ex.P-14, the

DNA of the appellant-accused and the child does not

match. The argument of the counsel for the appellant

therefore is that the prosecutrix had been having relation

with someone else and that the prosecutrix has not stated

the truth before the Court. He has also submitted that the

appellant has been falsely implicated and the motive for

implicating the appellant is that a quarrel had taken place

between the appellant and the brother of the prosecutrix.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the appellant was released on bail owing to all these

considerations during the pendency of the trial. The hearing

of the appeal is likely to take time. On these premises, the

learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent/State has opposed the application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and considering the

evidence on record, but without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the

application and suspend the sentence awarded to the

appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.1054/2021 is allowed.

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/- (Twenty

Five Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court

on 15.11.2021 and on all dates of hearing unless otherwise

directed.

The jail authorities shall have the appellant checked

by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the

corona-virus 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.

Certified copy as per rules.

                     (Mohammad Rafiq)                      (Sanjay Dwivedi)
                       Chief Justice                            Judge



           ac/-




Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2021.04.24 21:31:23
+05'30'