Rakesh @ Golu Banjaara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2177 MP

                                                                            1                                CRA-1513-2021
                                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                           CRA-1513-2021
                                               (RAKESH @ GOLU BANJAARA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                        3
                                        Jabalpur, Dated : 08-06-2021
                                              Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                              Shri Mohd. Mohsin Wali, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                              Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.

None for the Victim-A, though served.

Record of the court below is available on record.

Appeal is admitted for hearing.

Heard on I.A.No.3653/2021, which is an application filed by the accused/appellant, under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Gauharganj, District Raisen (MP), in SPL Session Trial No.04/2020 vide its judgment dated 16.12.2021 convicting the appellant/accused under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-,with default stipulation, as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

As per prosecution case, on 9.8.2019, accused/appellant caught hold the hand of prosecutrix aged 16 years and outraged her modesty.

L e a r n e d counsel for the appellant/accused submits that accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is alleged by the prosecution that incident occurred at public place, but no independent witness is examined by the prosecution before the trial Court. Learned trial court committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused. Learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Prosecution totally failed to prove the age of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix herself disclosed her age as 16 years, whereas Signature Not Verified SAN learned trial Court determined the age of prosecutrix as 14 years 3 months.

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2021.06.08 17:13:01 IST 2 CRA-1513-2021 Source of date of birth of prosecutrix is not proved. Accused/appellant remained in jail during trial since 19.8.2019 to 24.8.2019. Accused/appellant has already been granted temporary bail till 17.5.2021 vide order dated 15.3.2021. Accused/appellant has no previous criminal antecedent. Learned trial court already suspended the execution of sentence and granted bail to the appellant. This appeal is of the year 2021. It is the time of COVID-19,

therefore, final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be allowed and execution of the period of jail sentence may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the fact that appellant-accused is not previously convicted, acused/appellant remained in jail during trial since 19.8.2019 to 24.8.2019, learned trial court already suspended the execution of sentence and granted bail to the appellant, this appeal is of year the 2021, it is the time of COVID- 19, therefore, 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 appellant -Rakesh @ Golu Banjara 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 amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial court on 16.08.2021 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.

Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.06.08 17:13:01 IST
                                                                                3                               CRA-1513-2021

I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant 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 applicant 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.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2021.06.08 17:13:01 IST