Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asharaf Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
CRA-91-2019
1
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-91-2019
(ASHARAF KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
3
Gwalior, Dated 27-04-2021
:
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody, Additional Advocate General for the respondent-
State.
I.A. No.22733/2020:
The present is the first application under Section 389 CrPC on
behalf of appellant -Asharaf Khan for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to him, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC read with Section 5L/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
prosecutrix (P.W.3) and her mother (P.W.2) have both not supported the
case of the prosecution. In fact in her statement, the prosecutrix (P.W.3)
has categorically stated that her age was more than 18 years, which
according to the learned counsel, is also corroborated from her denial in
the cross-examination in the Court that she ever told the police that she
was minor. The mother of the prosecutrix has stated in her statement that
her age was 20 years. Learned counsel submits that as per discussion
made in para 8 of the impugned judgment, the Headmaster of the
Government Urdu Girls Primary School, Sheopur namely Umesh
Sikarwar (P.W.1), the date of birth of the prosecutrix, when she was first
admitted in his school on 3.7.2010 was 1.7.2000, even according to that
date of birth, she was more that 17 years and 4 months at the time of the
incident. The age of the accused was about 21 years and therefore, they
were both in youth and fell in love with each other. Learned counsel also
CRA-91-2019
submitted that during the trial, the prosecutrix and the accused married
each other and the learned trial Court taking note of this aspect in para 41
of the judgment observed that in this view of the fact, lenient view was
taken for awarding the sentence. It is argued that the appellant is in jail for
more than two years and hearing of the appeal is likely to take long time
for its disposal and prayed that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended
and he be released on bail till the disposal of present appeal.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made and considering
the totality of the circumstances and evidence on record but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to allow
this application and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant.
Accordingly, it is directed that the remaining part of the jail
sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the
pendency of the appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail upon his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the 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.
I.A. No.22733/2020 stands allowed and disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C.
Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2021.04.27
18:22:24 +05'30'
