Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Criminal Appeal No.1182/2021 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
Criminal Appeal No.1182/2021
Mukesh S/o Bhayla Barela v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
Indore, dated 20.07.2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Sohani, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent / State.
With the consent, heard on I.A. No.12434/2021, which is
first application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of appellant - Mukesh S/o Bhayla Barela.
The appellant has been convicted vide judgment of
conviction dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhikangaon, District - Mandleshwar in Sessions Trial
No.13/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 368 r/w
366 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and 20 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.5,000/- respectively. With default clause to further undergo
one month and 3 months' rigorous imprisonment respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per
prosecution case, the appellant provided shelter to co-accused
who allegedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix. By taking
this Court to para - 35 of the impugned judgment, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that as per finding of the Court
below, the prosecutrix was major. It is a case of consent between
prosecutrix and co-accused. By placing reliance on paras - 14
and 29 of the cross-examination of prosecutrix (P.W-3), learned
counsel for the appellant submits that as per her own clear
admission, she did not leave the place of residence namely
Sapatia on the date of incident. Thus, she did not support the
story of the prosecution. The hearing of this appeal in this
pandemic era is not possible in near future. Hence, the appellant
may be given benefit of suspension of jail sentence.
The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate
for the respondent / State by contending that the prosecutrix
stated that the present appellant took her back to her residence
and this statement has not been put to cross-examination.
Considering the nature of accusation and limited role
played by present appellant coupled with the aforesaid paragraphs
of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, we deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly,
I.A. No.12434/2021 stands allowed.
The execution of jail sentence of appellant - Mukesh S/o
Bhayla Barela is hereby suspended and it is ordered that the
appellant 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 of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court and subject to depositing the fine amount (if not
already deposited) with a further direction to appear before the
Trial Court, District - Mandleshwar on 22.12.2021 and also on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial Court, District -
Mandleshwar in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2021.07.20 18:25:48 +05'30'
