Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8595 MP

                                                                             1                            CRA-2977-2021
                                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                          CRA No. 2977 of 2021
                                                               (JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


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

                                                Shri Gopal 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.12128/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Jagdish.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Amarwara, District- Chhindwara (MP), in Special Case No.13/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 366 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 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. 1,000/-. Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.07.2016, prosecutrix aged 17 years, was missing from her house, she was searched but not found. FIR was lodged. On 17.08.2016, prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of appellant/accused. It is alleged by the prosecution that appellant/accused kidnapped the prosecutrix and kept her as a wife. Thereafter, he committed intercourse with her.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way. Dilip (PW-8) is a teacher of Government Middle School, Gaorpani, Tehsil-Harrai. He deposed before the trial Court that the date of birth of prosecutrix is Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.12.10 17:46:42 IST 2 CRA-2977-2021 07.08.1999 vide Ex. P-15 but he admitted in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge what is the source of information regarding date of birth of prosecutrix. Parents of prosecutrix did not disclose the date of birth of prosecutrix. They disclosed the date of birth of prosecutrix on the basis of mark sheet. Prosecutrix has been examined by the lady doctor and found

that her secondary sexual character is found well developed. Dr. D. Moitra (PW-4) determined the age of prosecurix is between 16 to 17 years. So, the age of prosecutrix may be above 18 years. Prosecutrix admitted this fact that her parents were not ready to marry the prosecutrix with appellant/accused due to which she ran away. She made physical relationship with appellant/accused voluntarily. So, it appears that prosecutrix is a consenting party in this matter. Prosecutrix also filed an affidavit in this regard. Apart from this, there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Appellant/accused is in jail since 25.03.2021. During trial, appellant/accused is remained in jail for some days. This appeal is of the year 2021. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. Final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.

Learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application. Hearing argument of both the parties and this fact that the age of prosecutrix is disputed, prosecutrix is a consenting party in this matter, it appears from her evidence that she wants to marry with appellant/accused but parents of prosecutrix were not ready, due to this prosecutrix ran away with appellant/accused, she was residing with appellant/accused as husband and wife, appellant/accused is in jail since 25.03.2021, during trial appellant/accused is remained in jail for some days. This appeal is of the year 2021, 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

Signature Not Verified be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence awarded to the SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.12.10 17:46:42 IST 3 CRA-2977-2021 appellant and grant bail to him.

Consequently, I.A. No.12128/2021 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-Jagdish 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 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: 2021.12.10 17:46:42 IST