Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeetendra Adivasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-10323-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 10323 of 2019
(JEETENDRA ADIVASI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 02-12-2021
Shri C.S. Parmar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Record of the trial Court is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing
Also heard on I.A. No.15041/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Jeetendra Adivasi.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 08/11/2018
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, district-Panna (MP) in Special
Session Trial No. 49/2019, by which, the appellant has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 363 of IPC, and has been sentenced to
undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 366(A) of IPC
sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs. 500/-, Section
376(2) (N) of IPC, sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of
Rs. 500/- and also under Section 4 of POCSO Act, sentenced to undergo RI
for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 22/03/2019, the mother of
prosecutrix lodged the missing report of prosecutrix. It is alleged by her that
one month ago, the prosecutrix aged about 13 years was missing from her
house. She was searched but not found then FIR was lodged. Thereafter the
prosecutrix was recovered on 21/08/2019 from the possession of the
appellant-accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that appellant-accused
kidnapped the prosecutrix and kept her at Telhi in Surat, thereafter, the
appellant-accused committed intercourse with the prosecutrix. The
prosecutrix told the appellant-accused to leave her at her parental house but
appellant-accused left her at village Rajnipur where her mousi was residing.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.03 17:55:17 IST
2 CRA-10323-2019
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial
Court has committed grave error to convict and sentence to the appellant-
accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective
way. Actually, it is not proved that at the time of incident prosecutrix was
below the age of 18 years. The date of birth of prosecutrix is proved by Smt.
Rajani Kher (PW-2) but she admitted the fact that when the prosecutrix was
admitted at the school, at that time, she was not posted there. The birth
certificate of the prosecutrix is not available on record, therefore, date of birth
of prosecutrix can be asessed on the estimation. The parents of the
prosecutrix did not disclose the date of birth of prosecutrix although doctor
Amit (PW-11) deposed before the trial Court that the age of prosecutrix may
be 12 years but he also admitted this fact that the age of prosecutrix can be
determined after radiologist examination. It appears from the record that
appellant-accused and prosecutrix solemnized the marriage and in this regard
marriage agreement has been executed vide Exhibit D-2. In this document,
the age of prosecutrix is mentioned as 20 years and on that basis the age of
prosecutrix may be above 18 years. The prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed before
the learned trial Court that she resided with the appellant-accused at various
places. During this period, she did not raise any objection. The prosecutrix
herself admitted this fact that she solemnized the marriage with the appellant-
accused at Panna, thus, the prosecutrix is consenting party in this matter.
When the prosecutrix was recovered, she was pressurized to give false
statement against the appellant-accused. There are material contradictions and
ommissions in the evidence of witnesses. The appellant is in custody since
08/11/2018 till now. During the trial, he remained in jail from 21/08/2019 to
02/11/2019, thus, he has served the substantial jail sentence awarded to him.
This appeal is of year 2019. Final hearing of this appeal will take time. There
is every possibility to get success in this appeal. Therefore, the application
filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his
Signature Not Verified
remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on
SAN
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.03 17:55:17 IST
3 CRA-10323-2019
bail.
Learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application.
Heard arguments of both the parties and looking to the fact that the
age of prosecutrix is disputed, the prosecutrix may be consenting party in the
whole incident, the appellant-accused has served the substantial jail sentence
awarded to him, this appeal is of year 2019, final hearing of this appeal will
take considerable time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail
sentence awarded to the appellant and grant bail to him.
Consequently, I.A. No.15041/2021 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-Jeetendra Adivasi 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 21.02.2022 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.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
kundan
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.03 17:55:17 IST
