Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhake Lal Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-1915-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1915-2020
(CHHAKE LAL KOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Ku. Kamlesh Tamrakar, P.L. for the respondent-State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Hear d on I.A. No.3761/2020 an application for suspension of
execution of sentence awarded to the appellant and grant of bail.
Vid e judgment dated 10.01.2019 in Special S.T. No.300065/2016
passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Distt.-Shahdol, M.P., the appellant
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) of IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, under
Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and under Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 7 years with default stipulation in each.
As per prosecution case, on dated 19.11.2014, prosecutrix PW-1 aged
below 16 years was missing from her house. She was searched but not
found. It is informed to the parents of prosecutrix that appellant-accused
kidnapped prosecutrix. Thereafter, FIR was lodged. Thereafter on dated
14.02.2016, prosecutrix was recovered. It is alleged by the prosecution that
appellant-accused kidnapped prosecutrix and took her to various places and
committed intercourse with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court has
committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant-accused.
Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way. It is
Signature Not Verified
SAN
not proved that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years.
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.07.16 16:37:24 IST
2 CRA-1915-2020
Rajendra Singh (PW-8) Assistant Teacher deposed before the Trial Court
that date of birth of prosecutrix is 04.08.2001 but he admitted this fact that
there is no other documentary evidence available on the record on which it
can be said that what is source of date of birth of prosecutrix? The mother of
prosecutrix admitted this fact that she does not know what date of birth is
written in the school record. Prosecutrix is examined by doctor. Doctor
found her secondary sexual character well-developed. Doctor fixed the age of
prosecutrix between 16-18 years. At the time of incident, prosecutrix was
doing labour work so, the age of prosecutrix might be above 18 years at the
time of incident. Prosecutrix is wholly consenting party in this matter. PW-1
deposed before the Trial Court that she went with appellant-accused to
Allahabad and Gujarat. Appellant-accused kept her in the house at Gujarat but
prosecutrix did not lodge any complaint against the appellant-accused in this
tenure. Other neighbours were residing nearby house of the appellant-
accused. Both are of Scheduled Tribe category. There is custom to
solemnize marriage by run away. There are material contradiction and
omission in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant is in jail
since 14.02.2016. So, he has served more than 5 years of jail sentence out of
10 years. This appeal is of year 2020. It is the time of COVID-19 due to
which final hearing of this appeal will take time. There is every possibility to
succeed in this appeal. There is no likelihood of his absconding and
tampering with the evidence. Under the circumstances, if the execution of
sentence of the appellant is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be
futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
to the present appellant-accused.
O n the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State
opposes the submission of appellant's counsel and prays for rejection of
application.
Heard and perused the record.
Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.07.16 16:37:24 IST
3 CRA-1915-2020
parties and looking to the facts that age of prosecutrix is disputed,
prosecutrix lived with appellant-accused at various places, appellant-accused
is in jail since 14.02.2016, so he has served more than 5 years of jail sentence
out of 10 years, this appeal is of year 2020, it is the time of pandemic
COVID-19 due to which final hearing of this appeal will take time but without
commenting anything on the merits 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 appellant-Chhake Lal Kol
shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the same like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the learned trial court
on 29.09.2021 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as may be
fixed by the trial court in this regard.
I n case, the 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.
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 by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona
Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3 . If it is found that the appellant is suffering from 'Corona Virus
disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing
him in appropriate quarantine facility.
List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.
C.C. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.07.16 16:37:24 IST
4 CRA-1915-2020
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.07.16 16:37:24 IST
