Anands Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8100 MP

                                                                    1                               CRA-1942-2016
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                   CRA No. 1942 of 2016
                                                    (ANANDS SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                   Jabalpur, Dated : 02-12-2021
                                         Shri Shailendra Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellant.

                                         Shri Dinesh Patel, Panel Lawyer 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.1548/2019, second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.09.2017 with liberty to renew the prayer after undergoing substantial part of jail sentence.

T h e appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.07.2016 , passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur, District-Anuppur, in S.T. No. 133/2015 by which appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section

376(2)(N) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Section 366 of IPC, sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years, along with fine of Rs. 2000/- with the default stipulations.

As per prosecution case, on 30.08.2014 prosecutrix aged 16 years was missing from her house. She was searched but not found. On 07.09.2014 prosecutrix was recovered. It is alleged by the prosecution that co-accused Sushila Bai took the prosecutrix at the house of co- accused Bela Bai. Co-accused detained her in the house of Bela Bai, thereafter, appellant-accused committed intercourse with prosecutrix on false pretext of marriage.

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

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.12.03 11:30:37 IST 2 CRA-1942-2016 trial Court has committed grave error in convicting and sentencing to the appellant-accused. Learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in prospective way. It is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was below 18 years. Ramsajeevan Tendve PW/2 proved the date of birth of prosecutrix but he deposed

before the trial court that the date of birth was written by him on the basis of certificate of Aaganwadi but that certificate was not produced, so it is evident that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is not proved according to law. Parents of the prosecutrix did not depose the reliable evidence in regards the date of birth of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix is consenting party in this matter. Prosecutrix was residing with appellant-accused for sometime. During this period she did not raise any objection. Prosecutrix voluntarily came to the appellant-accused. The evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable. There are material contradictions and omissions in recoding the evidence and statements of the witnesses. Co-accused Bela Bai already acquitted on same evidence for the offence punishable under Section 109 ready with Section 376(2)(I)(N), 366(Ka) & 343 of IPC and Section 17 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. Co-accused Neelu Singh already acquitted on same evidence for the offence punishable under Section 109 ready with Section 376(2)(I)(N), 342 of IPC and Section 17 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act & other co-accused Sushila Bai also acquitted on same evidence for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 (Ka) of IPC and Section 17 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. Appellant is in jail since 08.07.2016 till now. During trial he remained in jail since 07.09.2014 to 24.12.2014, so he has served 6 years actual sentence with remission about 8 years out of 10 years. This appeal is of year 2016. Final hearing of this appeal will take considerable time. There is every possibility to get success in this Signature Not Verified SAN appeal. If the appellant is not released on bail, the purpose of filing this Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.12.03 11:30:37 IST 3 CRA-1942-2016 appeal will be futile. The Apex Court in the case of Saudan Sing Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in CRMBA No. 209280/2017 vide order dated 20.11.2018 has held that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those case again the broad parameter of 50 percent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing this application and grant bail to him.

O n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly

convicted the appellant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.

Hearing arguments of both the parties and this fact that co-accused Bela Bai already acquitted on same evidence for the offence punishable under Section 109 ready with Section 376(2)(I)(N), 366(Ka) & 343 of IPC and Section 17 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, co-accused Neelu Singh already acquitted on same evidence for the offence punishable under Section 109 ready with Section 376(2)(I)(N), 342 of IPC and Section 17 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act & other co- accused Sushila Bai also acquitted on same evidence for the offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 (Ka) of IPC and Section 17 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, appellant is in jail since 08.07.2016 till now, during trial he remained in jail since 07.09.2014 to 24.12.2014, so he has served 6 years actual sentence with remission about 8 years out of 10 years, this appeal is of year 2016, final hearing of this appeal will take considerable time therefore, without commenting anything on the merit of the case, I.A.No.1548/2019 is allowed.

It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of appellant-Anand Singh shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.12.03 11:30:37 IST 4 CRA-1942-2016 on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 17.02.2022 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.

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

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.12.03 11:30:37 IST