Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veera Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-1876-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1876-2021
(VEERA AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-07-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prashant Mishra, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Record of the Court below is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
This appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.4496/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Veera Ahirwar.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 26.02.2021
passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District-
Narsinghpur (MP) in Special Session Trial No. 26/2020, by which the
appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of IPC and has
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section
354-A of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of
Rs. 1,000/-, Section 506 part-II of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 8 of POCSO Act and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
Default stipulation has also been imposed by the trial Court.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.03.2018, when prosecutrix
(PW-1) and her sister went to take water from hand pump at that time
appellant/accused and co-accused reached there and they caught hold the
hand of prosecutrix. Thereafter, appellant/accused proposed her to
intercourse with him. Prosecutrix refused then appellant/accused and co-
accused threatened the prosecutrix and her sister for dire consequence.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.07.23 16:56:07 IST
2 CRA-1876-2021
Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant/accused.
Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way. It is
not proved that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years.
Learned trial Court determined the age of prosecutrix i.e. 17 years, 1 month
and 9 days. Virendra Kumar Naseene (PW-11) is Principal of Government
Primary School Amada District Narsingpur. He deposed before the trial
Court that the date of birth of prosecutrix i.e. 05.02.2001. He produced
admission register in this regard but he admitted this fact that the parents of
prosecutrix entered the date of birth of prosecutrix at admission register on
estimation basis. Parents of prosecutrix did not disclose the date of birth of
prosecutrix. So, age of prosecutrix may be above 18 years. Apart from this, it
is a matter of love affairs. Prosecutrix (PW-1) herself admitted this fact that
she wrote love letter as Ex. D-1 and Ex.D-2 to the appellant/accused.
Actually, this fact came to the knowledge of parents of prosecutrix.
Therefore, prosecutrix was pressurized to lodge the false report against the
appellant/accused. There are material contradictions and omissions in the
evidence of witnesses. So, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not
reliable. Apart from this, learned trial Court has already suspended the
execution of sentence of appellant and grant bail. This appeal is of the year
2021. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. It is time of COVID-19
pandemic, due to this, final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore,
the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period
of his remaining jail sentence may be suspended further and he may be
released on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
application.
Considering the argument of both the parties and evidence and also this
fact that learned trial Court has already suspended the execution of sentence
of appellant, this appeal is of the year 2021, it is time of COVID-19 due to
this final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without expressing any
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.07.23 16:56:07 IST
3 CRA-1876-2021
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would
be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence awarded to the
appellant and grant bail to him.
Consequently, I.A. No.4496/2021 is allowed subject to deposit of
fine amount, if not already deposited. The custodial sentence awarded to the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
Appellant-Veera Ahirwar be released from custody subject to his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only), with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
trial Court. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the trial
Court on 27.09.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as
may be given by the trial Court in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.
I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the
appellant shall also comply with 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 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 the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.07.23 16:56:07 IST
