Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maneel Kumar Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-5373-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 5373 of 2017
(MANEEL KUMAR DHURVE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-12-2021
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Lokesh Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A.No. 12881/2021 (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dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12/10/2018.
Accused/appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment
dated 31/10/2017 passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandla,
(M.P.) in S.T. No.107/2015 under Section 365 of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of
Rs.500/-, Section 342 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 509-B of IPC
and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- with
default stipulations in each.
A s per prosecution story, on 28/04/2015, the appellant-accused
committed intercourse with the prosecutrix below the age of 16 years,
thereafter, the prosecutrix became pregnant. When her mother enquired in
this regard, she disclosed all the incident to her mother and thereafter the
report was lodged on 11/09/2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that learned
trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence to the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.10 17:59:41 IST
2 CRA-5373-2017
appellant/accused. It is not proved beyond doubt that at the time of
incident, the prosecutrix was below 18 years, though Smt. Klarin Tandia
(PW-7) deposed before the trial Court that the date of birth of prosecutrix
is 11/12/2002 as per admission report Exhibit P/10, but she admitted in
her cross-examination that no document is produced by her father at the
time of admission. The parents of prosecutrix did not disclose the date of
birth of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is examined by lady doctor Smt.
Malviaya Uikey (PW-5). She deposed before the trial Court that
secondary sexual charector of prosecutrix was well developed. The age
of prosecutrix may be above 18 years. Prosecutrix is consenting party in
this matter. She did not disclose the incident immediately. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. This
appeal is of the year 2017. The appellant is in jail since 11/09/2015 till
now, so, he has served 6 years and 3 months out of 10 years of jail
sentence. 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
submitting that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.10 17:59:41 IST
3 CRA-5373-2017
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 the age of
prosecutrix is disputed, she may be a consenting party in this matter,
appellant-accused is in custody since 11/09/2015, so he has served
almost 6 years and 3 months jail sentence out of 10 years, this appeal is
of year 2017, final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A.No. 12881/2021 is
allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant-Maneel
Kumar Dhurve 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
kundan
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.10 17:59:41 IST
