Chintaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3839 MP

                                                                         1                               CRA-1090-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                          CRA-1090-2021
                                                    (CHINTARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                       4
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 02-08-2021
                                             Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                             Shri S.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                             Shri Mohd. Siddique, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

None for the respondent No.2 although notice has been served. Record of the Court below is available.

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Heard on I.A. No.2681/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Chintaram.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 06.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Khandwa, District-Khandwar ( M P ) in Special Case No. 37/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC and has been sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 1 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section 3(1)(B)(1) of SC/ST Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 3(2)(5-ka) of SC/ST Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/-. Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.04.2018 at about 11:30 pm, prosecutrix (PW-1) was standing in the courtyard of her house. At that time, appellant reached there and asked the prosecutrix to whom does she talk. Thereafter, appellant/accused snatched the mobile phone of prosecutrix and caught hold her hand. FIR was lodged.

Signature Not Verified SAN Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.08.02 17:29:26 IST 2 CRA-1090-2021 Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant/accused. There is no material available on the record on which it can be said that appellant/accused outraged the modesty of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was standing out of her house in the night. Appelant/accused is neighbour. So, he asked the prosecutrix in this regard. Due to this, prosecutrix became annoyed and lodged the report. The evidence of prosecutrix is not wholly reliable. No

other independent witnesses are available on the record. Appellant/accused is aged about 23 years young boy. He has no previous criminal antecedent. He is not previously convicted. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. This appeal is of the year 2021. Appellant/accused is in custody since 01.02.2021. During trial, appellant/accused is remained in jail from 08.06.2019 to 11.06.2019. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. It is time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to this, final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.

Learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application. Considering the argument of both the parties and this fact that appellant/accused is in custody since 01.02.2021. During trial, appellant/accused is remained in jail from 08.06.2019 to 11.06.2019, this appeal is of the year 2021, it is time of COVID-19 due to this final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am o f the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant and grant bail to him.

Consequently, I.A. No.2681/2021 is allowed subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited. The custodial sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.

Appellant-Chintaram be released from custody subject to his Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.08.02 17:29:26 IST 3 CRA-1090-2021 furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the trial Court on 29.09.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given by the trial Court in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.

I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the

appellant by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.

List the matter for final hearing in due course. C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

L.R.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.08.02 17:29:26 IST