Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Panika vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-720-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 720 of 2018
(PRADEEP PANIKA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-12-2021
Shri D.K. Shah, Advocate for the appellant.
Ku. Seema Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A.No. 12029/2021 (second application), which is an
application filed by the appellant under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The first application was
dismissed on merit vide order dated 20.08.2019.
Accused/appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment
dated 26.12.2017 passed by learned Special Sessions Case (POCSO)
No.300052/2016 under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-,
Section 376(2)(h) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 5(l) r/w
Section 6 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulations in each.
A s per prosecution story, appellant-accused has committed
intercourse with prosecutrix aged 15 years since 2 years. Thereafter, she
became pregnant. Appellant-accused refused to keep prosecutrix with
him then prosecutrix lodged the report on dated 23.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that learned
trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence to the
appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence
in perspective way. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that at the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.12.10 17:18:02 IST
2 CRA-720-2018
time of incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years. Although Ranjeet Ikka
PW-6 deposed before the trial Court the date of birth of prosecutrix is
15.02.2002 vide Ex. P-5 School Register and Admission Register vide
Ex. P-11 but he admitted that he has no knowledge what is the source of
information of date of birth of the prosecutrix. Parents of prosecutrix did
not disclose the date of birth of prosecutrix. She was examined by doctor
Diksha Pandey PW-3. She found all the secondary sexual characters of
prosecutrix well developed due to this the age of prosecutrix may be
above 18 years at the time of incident. Prosecutrix is consenting party in
this matter. She did not disclose the incident immediately to any person.
When she became seven months pregnant then she disclosed the incident.
There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
witnesses. This appeal is of the year 2018. The appellant is 22 years
young boy. He is in jail since 30.09.2016. So, he has served his actual
jail sentence of 5 years and 3 months of jail sentence out of 10 years. 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 Hon'ble the 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." Final hearing of this appeal will take
considerable time for its final disposal. There is fair chance to succeed in the
appeal. Under these circumstances, if the sentence of the appellant/accused is
not suspended, purpose to file this appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer is
made for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail of present
accused/appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the same
submitting that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.12.10 17:18:02 IST
3 CRA-720-2018
sentence is based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary
evidence and the appellant has committed grave offence. Therefore,
sentence of the appellant should not be suspended.
Hearing arguments of both the parties and the facts that age of
prosecutrix is disputed, she did not disclose the incident immediately
after the incident to any person due to this she may be a consenting party,
appellant-accused is in jail since 30.09.2016, so he has served his actual
jail sentence of 5 years and 3 months of out of 10 years, final hearing of
this appeal will take time, but without commenting anything on the merits
of the case, I.A.No. 12029/2021 is allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant-Pradeep
Panika shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing 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 trial Court for his appearance
before the trial Court on 08.03.2022 and thereafter on all other such
subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard.
In case, accused/appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the
trial Court then the said Court shall be free to issue and execute warrant
of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry
of this Court is kept informed.
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.12.10 17:18:02 IST
