Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balaram @ Rajjan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-7458-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 7458 of 2018
(BALARAM @ RAJJAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-12-2021
Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ramjee Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A.No. 11354/2021 (third application), filed by the
appellant under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
Accused/appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment
dated 10/09/2018 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Niwari,
district Tikamgarh (M.P.) in S.T. No.107/2014 under Section 506-B of
IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, with
default stipulations in each.
As per prosecution story, on 08/06/2014, at evening 11:00 P.M.
the appellant-accused committed intercourse with the prosecutrix, aged
about 25 years.
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. Actually, it is a matter of consent. The prosecutrix was
pressurized to lodge a false report against the appellant-accused by her
husband and her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Prosecutrix submitted
a written report on 17/06/2014, so there is an inordinate delay in
lodging the report. Exhibit-P/1 is written by Lallu Pal (PW-7). Lallu Pal
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.14 11:11:28 IST
2 CRA-7458-2018
(PW-7) deposed before the trial Court that initially prosecutrix went to
lodge the report against the appellant-accused to outrage her modesty but
she was pressurized to lodge serious report then Exhibit-P-1 is written
by him under the instruction of prosecutrix, due to this, the evidence of
prosecutrix PW-1 is not wholly reliable. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The appellant-accused has served almost four years two months actual
sentence out of seven years. This appeal is of the year 2018. The
appellant is in jail since 10/09/2018 till now, so, he has served 4 years
and 2 months actual sentence out of 7 years according to jail report. 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 to the present
accused/appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the same
submitting that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
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.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Hearing arguments of both the parties and the facts that the incident
Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA
Date: 2021.12.14 11:11:28 IST
3 CRA-7458-2018
occurred on 08/06/2014 but the prosecutrix lodged the written report on
17/06/2014, this report is written by Lallu Pal (PW-7) under the
instruction of prosecutrix. Lallu Pal (PW-7) deposed before the trial
Court that initially prosecutrix wants to lodge the report against the
appellant-accused to outrage her modesty, the appellant-accused has
served almost 4 years and two months sentence out of 7 years, this
appeal is of year 2018, final hearing of this appeal will take time, but
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A.No.
11354/2021 is allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant-Balaram
@ Rajjan 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: 2021.12.14 11:11:28 IST
