Ravi Chaudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2698 MP

                                                                            1                                 CRA-1950-2021
                                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                            CRA-1950-2021
                                                           (RAVI CHAUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       2
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 25-06-2021
                                                Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                                Shri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                                Shri Lokesh Jain, 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.4626/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Ravi Choudhary.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 27.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge POCSO Act Umaria (MP) in S.C. No. 17/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Default stipulation has also been imposed by the trial

Court.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.07.2019, prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, lodged the report at Police State-Umaria. It is alleged by her, on 12.06.2019, appellant/accused tried to outrage her modesty and also proposed to intercourse with her. She refused and cried then appellant/accused ran away from there. Thereafter, on 03.07.2019, appellant/accused suggested her to come with him then her maternal aunt objected, thereafter, appellant/accused ran away.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial Court 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. It is

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.06.26 17:16:41 IST 2 CRA-1950-2021 alleged by the prosecution that incident occurred on 12.06.2019 but she did not lodge any report till 05.07.2019. So there is an inordinate delay to lodge the report. Actually, prosecutrix (PW-1) was consenting party but prosecutrix and appellant/accused were seen by her maternal aunt that prosecutrix was pressurized to lodge false report against the appellant/accused. So, there is material contradictions and omissions in the

evidence of witness. Learned trial Court already suspended the execution of sentence of appellant and grant bail. Appellant/accused is not previously convicted. He is aged about 21 years young boy. He has no previous criminal antecedent. 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 this fact that learned trial Court already acquitted the appellant/accused under Section 506-II of IPC, it is alleged by the prosecution that incident occurred on 12.06.2019 but FIR was lodged on 05.07.2019, learned trial Court already suspended the execution of sentence of prosecutrix, appellant/accused is not previously convicted, he is aged about 21 years young boy, 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 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.4626/2021 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-Ravi Chaudhary be released from custody subject to his Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2021.06.26 17:16:41 IST 3 CRA-1950-2021 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 06.09.2021 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: 2021.06.26 17:16:41 IST