Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhedilal Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-3074-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3074-2017
(CHHEDILAL ADIWASI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
20
Jabalpur, Dated : 31-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Indu Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sourabh Shukla, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.13379/2020, which is third application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Chhedilal. Earlier
applications were dismissed as withdrawn.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.,1973
b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 04.07.2017 passed by
learned 5th Additonal Sessions Judge, Rewa (MP) in Special Sessions Trial
No. 111/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under
Sections 450 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with
fine of Rs.1000/-, Section 376(2)(I) of IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Section 4 of POCSO
Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.
1000/-. Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 07.07.2015, appellant/accused
entered into the room of prosecutrix aged about 16 years and he committed
intercourse with her.
L e a r n e d counsel for the appellant/accused submits that
appellant/accused has been falsely been implicated in this case due to some
previous enmity. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in
perspective way. It is not proved that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was
below 18 years. Mohit Lal Kole (PW-6) is a Principal, who deposed before
the trial Court that date of birth of prosecutrix is 16.08.2001 but he admitted
in his cross examination that at the time of incident, he was posted at that
Signature Not Verified
SAN
school, he does not know that what is the source of date of birth of
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.08.31 18:16:35 IST
2 CRA-3074-2017
prosecutrix. It does not appear from that record that on what information the
date of birth of prosecutrix is written and who has written the same. The
father of prosecutrix is PW-3, it appears from his cross-examination that
prosecutrix is above 18 years. Apart from this, Ankit Adiwasi (PW-8) is an
eye witness of the case, he deposed before the trial Court that
appellant/accused was not present at the time of incident. He also admitted
this fact that at the time of incident, appellant/accused did not come in the
house of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was in relation with another person.
Appellant/accused objected the same then appellant/accused has been
implicated in this false case. There is material contradictions and omissions in
the evidence of witnesses. Appellant/accused is in custody since 11.07.2015,
so he has served almost 6 years sentence out of 10 years jail sentence.
Therefore, he has served almost substantial sentence. This appeal is of the
year 2017. It is time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to this final hearing of this
appeal will take time. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. 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 respondent/State has opposed the application.
Considering the argument of both the parties and this fact that the age
of prosecutrix is disputed, eye witness namely Ankit Adiwasi (PW-8) is not
declared hostile by the prosecution who deposed before the trial Court that at
the time of incident, appellant/accused did not come in the house of
prosecutrx and prosecutrix was in relation with another person and
appellant/accused objected the same, appellant/accused is in custody since
11.07.2015, so he has served almost 6 years sentence out of 10 years jail
sentence, this appeal is of the year 2017. 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.08.31 18:16:35 IST
3 CRA-3074-2017
and grant bail to him.
Consequently, I.A. No.13379/2020 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-Chhedilal Adiwasi be released from custody subject to
his 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 08.10.2021 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: 2021.08.31 18:16:35 IST
