Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Uike vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-6474-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-6474-2020
(GOVIND UIKE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
5
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-03-2021
Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prasanjeet Chatterjee, P.L. for the respondent-State.
Record of the trial Court has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.14569/2020 an application for suspension
of execution of sentence awarded to the appellant and grant of bail.
Vide judgment dated 18.11.2020 in S.T. No.212/2017 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, District-Chhindwara,
M.P., the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(N) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years
with default stipulation.
As per prosecution case, on dated 28.07.2017, prosecutrix aged 23
years submitted a written complaint before In-charge Police Station-
Kundipura that he was familiar with appellant-accused. Thereafter,
accused promised to marry with her. Appellant-accused committed
intercourse with her on the false pretext of marriage. When prosecutrix
told to the petitioner-accused to marry with her then petitioner-accused
did not receive her telephone call, then she lodged the report against the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted that
learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper way.
Learned Trial Court committed grave error in convicting and sentencing
appellant-accused. At the time of incident, prosecutrix was about 23
Signature
SAN
Verified
Not years and appellant-accused was 25 years. Both love each other so they
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.03.19
15:20:51 IST
2 CRA-6474-2020
establised relation with each other. So, prosecutrix is consenting party.
No, case is made out against the appellant-accused under Section 376(2)
(N) of IPC. Prosecutrix PW-2 deposed before the Trial Court that
appellant-accused told her that he will marry with her, thereafter,
appellant-accused established relation as husband and wife. Prosecutrix
PW-2 did not depose before the Trial Court that appellant-accused
committed intercourse without her consent. PW-3 is the mother of
prosecutrix PW-2. She also stated that prosecutrix told her that both
parties are ready to solemnize marriage. Appellant-accused remained in
jail during trial from 31.07.2017 to 18.12.2017 and is in jail since
18.12.2017. There are material contradiction and omission in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses. This appeal is of year 2020 and
trial will take time to conclude the same. 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 execution of 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 to
t h e present appellant-accused. In favour of his contention, learned
counsel for the appellant has cited the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in Cr.A. No. 233/2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 11218 of
2019).
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State
opposes the submission of appellant's counsel and prays for rejection of
application.
Heard and perused the record.
Having considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence and that
facts that at the time of incident prosecutrix was aged about 23 years, she
Signature Not
SAN
Verified voluntarily made relation with the appellant-accused, primafacie it
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.03.19
15:20:51 IST
3 CRA-6474-2020
appears that she establised relationship with petitioner-accused, he
remained in jail during trial from 31.07.2017 to 18.12.2017 and is in jail
since 18.12.2017, this appeal is of year 2020, final hearing of this appeal
will take time but without commenting anything on the merits 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-Golvind Uikey
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
same like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance
before the learned trial court on 15.06.2021 and thereafter on all other
such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.
In 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.
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.
Signature Not
SAN
Verified List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.03.19
15:20:51 IST
4 CRA-6474-2020
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI SINHA
Date: 2021.03.19
15:20:51 IST
