Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- CRA No.5321/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
CRA NO.5321/2018
Pankaj s/o Nanuram Khade vs. State of M.P
16.08.2021
: (Indore):
Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms.Chitralekha Hardia, learned Panel Advocate for the State.
Heard on IA No.714/21, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration, application is allowed.
Also heard on IA No.713/2021, a second repeat application
under section 389(1) Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence on behalf of
the appellant. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn on
31.07.2020 and now after a period of one year this second repeat
application has been filed.
Appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 12.06.2018 whereby he has been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
363(2 counts) IPC 7 years Rs.1000/- 6 months RI
367 (2 counts) IPC 10 years Rs.1000/- 6 months RI
509 (2 counts) IPC 3 years Rs.1000/- 6 months RI
As per prosecution story on 30.8.2015 near about 3.30 P.M
Priyanka, aged 18 years and her friend Puja, aged 15 years boarded in
a Tata Magic bearing registration No.MP-09-TA-9064 driven by the
appellant between Dhannadkhurd and Pithampur. After boarding them
in the vehicle the appellant speed up the vehicle and changed the route
of the vehicle towards Rau instead of Pithampur. When Priyanka and
Puja objected the appellant gave indecent gesture with bad intention
and on account of which due to panic Puja jumped from the speeding
vehicle and sustained injuries. During treatment she succumbed to her
injuries. An FIR was registered against the appellant for the offence
punishable under sections 363, 354, 511, 509 IPC and under section
-2- CRA No.5321/2018
7/8 of the POCSO Act. After completing investigation charge sheet
was filed and apart from other offences, the offence under section 308
IPC was also added. After trial vide impugned judgment the appellant
was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
wrongly been convicted under section 363 IPC on two counts because
he did not abduct the girls viz. Priyanka and Pooja from the lawful
custody of their parents. They themselves boarded in the vehicle,
therefore, no case for kidnapping is made out against him. He submits
that if there was no kidnapping then the offence under section 367 IPC
is also not made out against him, hence the appellant is entitled for
suspension of sentence. He further submits that this appeal is of the
year 2018 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in
near future. The appellant is a first offender. He has not committed
any offence and on account of panic one of the girl has jumped from
the vehicle and unfortunately she died.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application by submitting
that the appellant has been sentenced for ten years on two counts.
Even if it is not a case of kidnapping then the case comes under the
definition of abduction for which also section 367 applies.
I have perused the record.
Even if section 363 IPC is not made out against the appellant,
prima facie it is a case of abduction. As per the evidence of one of the
girls out of two boarded in the vehicle the accused/appellant has
changed the route of the vehicle and after speeding up the vehicle he
gave indecent gestures to the girls. In the vehicle except those two girls
there was no one in it, therefore, looking to the conduct of the
accused/appellant, no case for suspension of sentence is made out at
this stage. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
Digitally signed by HARI
(VIVEK RUSIA)
KUMAR C G NAIR JUDGE
hk/ Date: 2021.08.17 17:17:01
+05'30'
