Sandeep @ Pintu vs State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 77 MP

                                                        1                               CRA-3416-2020
                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        CRA-3416-2020
                                        (SANDEEP @ PINTU AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P.)

                      9
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 23-02-2021

                            Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
                            Shri Prashant Chatarjee, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

None for the Victim, though served.

Record of the court below is available on record.

Appeal has already been admitted for hearing on 29.7.2020. Heard on I.A.No.6541/2020, which is an application filed by the accused/appellants, under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence awarded by the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hoshangabad (MP), in S.C. No.61/2020 vide its judgment dated 25.2.2020 convicting the accused/appellant No.1- Sandeep @ Pintu & accused/appellant No.2-Kamal Singh for offence punishable under Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, respectively, accused/appellant No.1-Sandeep @ Pintu is also convicted for offence under Section 376 (2)(N) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- accused/appellant No.2- Kamal Singh is also convicted for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation, on each count. Accused/appellant No.3, Mool is convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

At this stage, learned counsel for accused/appellants does not want to Signature SAN Verified Not press I.A.No.6541/2020, so far as it relates to accused/appellant No.1- Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2021.02.23 17:10:19 IST 2 CRA-3416-2020 Sandeep @ Pintu.

Accordingly, I.A. No.6541/2020, is dismissed as not pressed so far as it relates to accused/appellant No.1-Sandeep @ Pintu.

As per prosecution case, 7.5.2015, prosecutrix aged 16 years 3 months, was missing from her house. She was searched, but she was

not found. FIR was lodged. Thereafter, prosecutrix was recovered on 2.8.2015 from the house of accused/appellant No.3-Mool Chand. Prosecutrix stated that co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu kidnapped her and took Bedapura. Present accused/appellant No.2-Kamal Singh met him, then co- accused Sandeep @ Pintuwent went at Itarsi railway station with prosecutrix and present accused/appellant No.2 Kamal Singh. Co-accused Sandeep @ Pintuand prosecutrix lived there as husband and wife. Co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu committed intercourse with her. Thereafter, present accused/appellant No.2-Kamal Singh called them at Itarsi. Accused/appellant No.2 Kamal Singh kept them in his house. Co-accused Sandeep committed intercourse with her at the house of present accused/appellant No.2 Kamal Singh. Thereafter, co-accused Sandeep @ Pintutook her at the house of present accused/appellant No.3-Moolchand and kept them in his house. Co- accused Sandeep @ Pintu committed intercourse with prosecutrix at the house of accused/appellant No.2-Moolchand. Accused/appellant No.3- Moolchand is the maternal uncle of co-accused-Sandeep @ Pintu and accused/appellant No.2 is the father of co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu. Thereafter, police reached there, then co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu ran away and then prosecutrix was recovered.

Learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits that accused/appellant No.2 Kamal Singh is father of co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu and accused/appellant No.3- Moolchand is the maternal uncle of co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu. They have no role in this incident. Actually, prosecutrix was 18 years of age and co-accused-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.02.23
17:10:19 IST
                                                     3                         CRA-3416-2020

Sandeep @ Pintu was 21 years of age, at the time of incident. Both love each other, but parents of prosecutrix and co-accused Sandeep were not ready to accept their relations. So, co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu and prosecutrix ran away and they solemnized their marriage with each other. Thereafter, co-accused Sandeep and prosecutrix lived of present accused/appellants for sometime, but they did not instigate co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu to commit any offence. Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Manju Chourey (PW/6). Prosecutrix (PW/3) stated to Dr. Manju Chourey (PW/6) that she has solemnized marriage two months ago, so present accused/appellants

have been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that accused/appellant No.2 Kamal Singh is father and accused/appellant No.3 Moolchand is maternal uncle of co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu. Present Accused/appellants No. 2 & 3 are in jail since 25.2.2020. During trial, they remained in custody for sometime. till now. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW/3) is not wholly reliable. This appeal is of year 2020 and it will take time for its final disposal. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses. There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal. There is no likelihood of their absconding and tampering with the evidence. Under the circumstances, if the execution of jail sentence of the appellants No. 2 & 3-Kamal Singh & Moolchand, respectively, is not suspended, their right to file appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail of present accused/ appellants No. 2 & 3.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.02.23
17:10:19 IST
                                                      4                           CRA-3416-2020

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and evidence, it is admitted fact that accused/appellant No.2 Kamal Singh is father and accused/appellant No.3 Moolchand is maternal uncle of co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu, it is also admitted that co-accused Sandeep and prosecutrix lived together as husband and wife for about 2 months at Agra, prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Manju Chourey (PW/6) and in her statement prosecutrix stated that she has solemnized marriage two months ago, so it appears that co-accused Sandeep @ Pintu lived with prosecutrix at the house of present accused/appellants after the marriage, this appeal is of year 2020, final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without commenting anything on the merit of the case, the said I.A. is allowed. It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellants No.2 & 3- Kamal Singh and Moolchand Pandre, shall remain suspended during

the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety in the amount of Rs.

50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance

before the trial court on 10.5.2021 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.

In case, the appellants are 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.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellants shall also comply with the rules and norms of social Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2021.02.23 17:10:19 IST 5 CRA-3416-2020 distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to

issue the following direction to the jail authority :-

1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the appellants by the jail doctor before their release.

2. The appellants shall not be released if they are suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the appellants are suffering from 'Corona Vi ru s disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing them in appropriate quarantine facility.

List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

A.Praj.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.02.23
17:10:19 IST