Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reeta @ Reshma Suradkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRA-1873-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1873-2020
(REETA @ RESHMA SURADKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-03-2021
Shri Z.M. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned GA for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.3661/2020, which is an application u/S.389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant
Reeta @ Reshma Suradkar.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.03.2019
passed by 23rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.153/2017
whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellant guilty for the
offence punishable under Sections 120(B) r/w Section 376 of IPC and
sentenced her to undergo R.I for 14 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default
stipulation.
As per prosecution case, on 01/4/2017, the prosecutrix lodged a
written report at Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal alleging that she is a
resident of Devki Nagar, Karond, Bhopal. In her childhood, once she had
fallen ill. At that time, appellant Rita @ Reshma (Aunt of the prosecutrix) got
her treated and she started residing with co-accused Reshma since then.
Appellant Reshma arranged for her studying up to class 7th. The parents of
the prosecutrix also resided at Nishatpura. She used to meet them
occasionally. Co-accused R.K. Mahale, maternal uncle of appellant Reshma
often used to come to her house to meet appellant Reshma, therefore the
prosecutrix also started calling him Mama. About 6-7 days prior to 29/3/2017
at about 2 to 2.30 pm co-accused R.K. Mahale came to meet appellant
Reshma. At that time Reshma was not at home. The co-accused R.K. Mahale
brought with him a bottle of Fanta cold drink. The co-accused offered the
cold drink to the prosecutrix and also drank the same. After drinking the
juice, she felt sleepy and slept on the mattress. Thereafter co-accused R.K.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Mahale committed rape with her. After some time, when she regained
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.03.31 18:19:51 IST
2 CRA-1873-2020
consciousness, she found that her salwar was removed. When she was
wearing her salwar, appellant Reshma came over there. She narrated the
incident to her but she did not say anything. The co-accused R.K. Mahale
had previously also committed rape with her about 6-7 times. Whenever the
co-accused came to the house of the prosecutrix, her aunt Reshma used to
go out of the house leaving her all alone at the house and at such time the co-
accused used to do intercourse with her. Appellant Reshma was also
involved in the crime. On that Police registered Crime No.243/2017 against
the appellant at Police Station, Nishatpura Bhopal, for the offence punishable
under Sections 372, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and
investigated the matter. After investigation police filed charge sheet against the
appellant and co-accused R.K. Mahale. On that charge-sheet,
S.T.No.153/2017 was registered.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court without
appreciating the evidence properly wrongly found appellant guilty for the
aforesaid offences. It is further submitted that the Prosecutrix was major.
Prosecutrix in her examination in chief clearly deposed that when for the first
time co-accused R.K. Mahale raped her, at that time her aunt appellant
Reshma was not at home. She was alone in the house. When appellant
Reshma came back home, she told her about the incident. Appellant Reshma
told that she would file the complaint against co-accused R.K. Mahale but she
herself stopped the appellant Reshma from lodging the report against co-
accused R.K. Mahale. In her cross-examination also prosecutrix deposed that
she does not know whether appellant Reshma had any fault in the incident or
not. Even the prosecutrix in her statement recorded by the JMFC under 164
of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) did not depose anything against present appellant
Reshma. Appellant is a woman. She has been in custody since 14.12.2017.
Learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly
convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Hence prayed for
Signature Not Verified
SAN
suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.03.31 18:19:51 IST
3 CRA-1873-2020
hearing of this appeal will take time.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that
from the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that the co-accused R.K.
Mahale committed rape with the prosecutrix and appellant was also involved
in the crime. There is no perversity in the findings of the trial court in this
regard. Learned trial court after appreciating all the prosecution evidence
rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. So the sentence
of the appellant should not be suspended.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and it is
directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and she
be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 23.08.2021 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf
by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.
Appeal is already admitted, so list for final hearing in due course.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
mn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2021.03.31 18:19:51 IST
