Ishwar Reddy vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3269 MP

                                                                     1                              CRA-9151-2018
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      CRA-9151-2018
                                               (ISHWAR REDDY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    22
                                    Jabalpur, Dated : 14-07-2021
                                          Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                          Shri Priyank Awasthy, Advocate for the appellant No.2.
                                          Shri Brijendra Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the trial Court has been received.

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.18018/2019 an application for suspension of execution of sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 and grant of bail.

Vide judgment dated 06.08.2018 in S.T. No. 296/2013 passed by

learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, District-Chhatarpur, M.P., the appellant No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 366-A of I.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 372 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- & Section 5(1) of Anetik Deh Vyapar Adhiniyam and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation respectively.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.06.2004, appellant No.2/accused & co-accused kidnapped the prosecutrix aged about 11 years, thereafter, they sold out the prosecutrix to another co-accused thereafter co-accused involved the prosecutrix in prostitution.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 (Lady) Geeta Kushwaha submits that learned trial Court committed grave error in convicting and Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.15 12:31:48 IST 2 CRA-9151-2018 sentencing to the appellant No.2/accused. There is no reliable evidence available on the record on which it can be said that appellant No.2/accused kidnapped the prosecutrix or compelled to illicit intercourse and sold out the prosecutrix for prostitution. Prosecutrix PW/5 admitted this fact that appellant No.2/accused met her at the bus

stand Chhatarpur, thereafter, appellant No.2/accused sent her with co- accused from bus stand. Prosecutrix admitted that she herself left her house voluntarily. So no case is made out against the appellant No.2/accused under Section 363 of I.P.C. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that appellant No.2/accused her brother Pappu, Kailash, and Kanta took her at Dholpur. She was resided at Dholpur in the house of Sheela Devi. Sheela Devi was pressurized the prosecutrix to do domestic work, thereafter her daughters Meenakshi and Vinita took her at Bombay and they involved the prosecutrix in prostitution but during the investigation Pappu, Kailash, Kanta, Sheela Devi, Meenakshi & Vinita were not arrested, so it appears that appellant No.2/accused falsely implicated in this case. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. This appeal is of year 2018 and final hearing of this appeal will take considerable time. There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal. This is a case of false implication. Appellant No.2 is in jail since 06.08.2018 till now. She remained in jail during the trial from 23.04.2013 to 17.08.2013, so she has served almost 3 years 8 months sentence out of 7 years. So appellant No.2/accused has served substantial sentence. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant No.2/accused.

Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application.

Perused the record.

Considering the arguments of both the parties and the fact that Signature Not Verified SAN appellant No.2 is in jail since 06.08.2018 till now, she remained in jail Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.15 12:31:48 IST 3 CRA-9151-2018 during the trial from 23.04.2013 to 17.08.2013, so she served almost 3 years 8 months sentence out of 7 years, so appellant No.2/accused has served substantial sentence, prosecutrix admitted the fact that she voluntarily came to Chhatarpur from her village, thereafter voluntarily went to Devas, it is also admitted by the prosecutrix that Meenakshi and Vinita involved her in prostitution but during investigation Pappu Kailash, Kanta, Sheela Devi, Meenakshi & Vinita were not arrested, this appeal is of year 2018 and final hearing of this appeal will take time, so it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence of the appellant No.2, consequently, I.A. is allowed. Execution of jail sentence

o f the appellant No.2 is hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal subject to depositing fine amount, if already not paid.

It is directed that appellant no.2-Geeta Kushwaha be released on bail on her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant No.2 shall appear and mark her presence before the trial Court on 30.09.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given by the trial Court in this regard during pendency of the matter.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant No.2 shall also comply the rules and norms of social 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 appellant No.2 by the jail doctor before her release.

2. The appellant No.2 shall not be released if she is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried Signature Not Verified

out.

SAN

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.15 12:31:48 IST 4 CRA-9151-2018

3 . If it is found that the appellant No.2 is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing her in appropriate quarantine facility.

List this matter after four weeks.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

Nitesh

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY Date: 2021.07.15 12:31:48 IST