Mannu Alias Satanand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 790 MP

                                                          1                                CRA-1313-2016
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         CRA-1313-2016
                                   (MANNU ALIAS SATANAND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                      18
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 17-03-2021
                            Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.
                            Shri Ravindra Singh Rajput, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

Record of the court below is available on record. Appeal is already admitted for hearing on 10.11.2017. Heard on I.A.No.3340/2021, which is repeat (second) application

filed by the accused/appellant, under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shahdol, District Shahdol (MP), in S.T. No.50/2014 vide its judgment dated 18.4.2016, convicting the appellant/accused under Ssections 363 & 366A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation, on each count, and Section 5(tha)/6 of POCSO Act, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.15,000/- with default stipulation, as mentioned in the impugned judgment. Earlier application being

I.A.No.9509/2016 is dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 10.11.2017.

A s per prosecution case, on 30.3.2014, at about 8:00 AM, accused/appellant kidnapped prosecutrix below 16 years. Accused/ appellant took prosecutrix to Merath and other places. Thereafter, accused/appellant committed intercourse with her.

L e a r n e d counsel for the appellant/accused submits that accused/appellant is in custody since 28.5.2014 to till now, so he has served almost 7 years of his jail sentence out of 10 years. So, he has served substantial jail sentence. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence with regard to the age of prosecutrix. It is held by learned trial Court that at the time of incident prosecutrix was 15 years of age. But, Jayant Kumar

Signature Not Mishra (PW/2) proved the same by producing scholar register Ex.P/2 and SAN Verified

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2021.03.17 17:41:27 IST 2 CRA-1313-2016 Mark sheet Ex.P/3. The date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned in the scholar register as 15.7.1999, but who has written this entry, was not produced before learned trial Court. Source of date of birth is also not proved by the prosecution. So, prosecution is failed to prove the age of prosecutrix. Accused/appellant cannot be convicted on the estimated age of prosecutrix. Apart from this, prosecutrix (PW/11) deposed before learned

trial Court that accused/appellant took her at various places, but she did not raise any objection. Prosecutrix was residing with accused/appellant for about 3 months. So, prosecutrix is wholly consenting party. This appeal is of year 2016 and trial will take time to conclude the same. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses. There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal. There is no likelihood of his absconding and tampering with the evidence. Under the circumstances, if the sentence of the appellant is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail of present accused/ appellant.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the record, accused/appellant is in jail since 28.5.2014 to till now and the appellant has served almost 7 years of his jail sentence, so, he has served substantive jail sentence, prosecutrix was residing with accused/appellant for about 3 months, but she did not raise any objection, this appeal is of year 2016, 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-Mannu @ Satanand 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 Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2021.03.17 17:41:27 IST 3 CRA-1313-2016 amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial court on 15.6.2021 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.

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 this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy. C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

A.Praj.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.03.17
17:41:27 IST