Awdhesh Pratap @ Pappu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8587 MP

                                                                           1                              CRA-340-2016
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         CRA No. 340 of 2016
                                                 (AWDHESH PRATAP @ PAPPU SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 10-12-2021
                                             Shri Sanjay Kumar Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                             Shri Lokesh Jain, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.1361/2019, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Awdhesh pratap @ Pappu Singh. Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order

dated 20.08.2018.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned IVth ASJ, Katni Distt.-Katni, (M.P.) in Session Case No. 37/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 (2-Jh) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2500/- and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2500/- with default stipulation in each section.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.06.2014, other co-accused Alamgir kidnapped the prosecutrix below 16 years. Thereafter, he took the prosecutrix at Katni, Itanagar, Lucknow and various places. Thereafter, he committed intercourse with her. Meanwhile, prosecutrix ran away from the clutches of co-accused Alamgir. On the way, present appellant/accused met her and he also committed intercourse with her. Thereafter, present appellant/accused again handed over the prosecutrox to co-accused Alamgir. Thereafter, prosecutrix was recovered and other co-accused were arrested.

L e a r n e d counsel for the appellant/accused submits that appellant/accused has served 7 years 4 months and 12 days sentence out of 10 years jail sentence. He has served actual 6 years sentence out of 10 years jail sentence. This is not proved that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was below 16 years. So, the case under Section 376 (2-Jh) is not made out against Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.12.13 18:37:47 IST 2 CRA-340-2016 the appellant/accused. In Section 376 of IPC, minimum sentence is prescribed of 7 years. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witness. This appeal is of the year 2016. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. Final hearing of this appeal will take time. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied

upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633/2021. It is opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail." Und er the circumstances, if the execution of jail sentence of the appellant is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the present accused/ appellant.

Learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application. H e a r i n g argument of both the parties and this fact that appellant/accused has served 7 years 4 months and 12 days sentence out of 10 years jail sentence, he has served actual 6 years sentence out of 10 years jail sentence, prosecutrix has been examined by lady doctor and found that her secondary sexual character is found well developed, this appeal is of the year 2016, final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of 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.1361/2019 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-Awdhesh pratap @ Pappu Singh be released from

Signature Not Verified custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-

SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.12.13 18:37:47 IST 3 CRA-340-2016 (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 28.02.2022 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

L.R.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.12.13 18:37:47 IST