Gattoo Sisondhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 980 MP

                                                        1                                 CRA-6274-2018
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         CRA-6274-2018
                                     (GATTOO SISONDHIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                      39
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 23-03-2021

                             Shri Priyank Awasthy Advocate for the appellant.
                             Shri Ravindra Singh Rajput, 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.9497/2020 an application for suspension of execution of sentence awarded to the appellant and grant of bail.

Vide judgment dated 06.08.2018 in S.T. No. 296/2013 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, District-Chhatarpur, M.P., the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363, of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 372 of IPC and sentenced

to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- & Section 5(1) of Anetik Deh Vyapar Adhiniyam and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation respectively.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.06.2004, appellant-accused & co-accused kidnapped the prosecutrix aged about 11 years, thereafter, they sold out the prosecutrix to another co-accused thereafter co-accused involved the prosecutrix in prostitution.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court erred grave error in convicting and sentencing to the appellant-accused. There is no reliable evidence available on the record on which it can be said that appellant-accused kidnapped the prosecutrix or compelled to Signature SAN Verified Not illicit intercourse and sold out the prosecutrix for prostitution. Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.03.25 13:02:09 IST 2 CRA-6274-2018 Prosecutrix PW/5 admitted this fact that appellant-accused did not suggest her to go Devas. She herself left her house voluntarily. Appellant-accused met her at the bus stand Chhatarpur, thereafter, she went with the appellant-accused to Devas but appellant-accused did not suggest her to come with her at Devas, so no case is made out against the

appellant-accused under Section 363 of IPC. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that appellant-accused her brother Pappu Kailash, and Kanta took her at Dholpur and appellant-accused left her in the house of Sheela Devi at Dholpur. She was resided at Dholpur in the house of Sheela Devi. Sheela Devi was pressurized the prosecutrix to do domestic work, thereafter her daughters Meenakshi and Vinita took her at Bombay and they involved the prosecutrix in prostitution but during the investigation Pappu Kailash Kanta, Sheela Devi, Meenakshi & Vinita were not arrested, so it appears that prosecutrix create concocted story. She herself left her house on 05.06.2004, thereafter, she herself had come in the house on 19.04.2013 about after 10 years. Prosecution did not examine any witnesses who deposed deposed before the trial court that appellant-accused took the prosecutrix with him. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. This appeal is of year 2018 and final hearing of this appeal will take time. There is fair chance to succeed in the appeal. This is a case of false implication. Appellant is in jail since 06.08.2018 till now. He remained in jail during the trial from 23.04.2013 to 17.08.2013, so he served almost 3 years 8 months sentence out of 7 years. So appellant accused has served substantial sentence. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail to the present appellant-accused.

Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application.

Signature Not
 SAN
Verified                    Perused the record.
Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Date: 2021.03.25
13:02:09 IST
                                                            3                       CRA-6274-2018

Considering the arguments of both the parties and the fact that appellant is in jail since 06.08.2018 till now, he remained in jail during the trial from 23.04.2013 to 17.08.2013, so he served almost 3 years 8 months sentence out of 7 years, so appellant accused has served substantial sentence, prosecutrix admitted the fact that she voluntarily came to Chhatarpur from her village, thereafter voluntarily went to Devas, appellant accused did not suggest her to come with him, it is also admitted by the prosecutrix that Meenakshi and Vinita involved her in prostitution but during investigation Pappu Kailash Kanta, Sheela Devi, Meenakshi & Vinita were not arrested, this appeal is of year 2018 and

final hearing of this appeal will take time, so it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence of the appellant, consequently, I.A. is allowed. Execution of jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal subject to depositing fine amount, if already not paid.

It is directed that appellant-Gattoo Sisondhiya be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the trial Court on 16.06.2021 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as may be given by the trial Court in this regard during pendency of the matter.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the appellant shall also comply 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 Signature Not SAN Verified appellant by the jail doctor before his release. Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2021.03.25 13:02:09 IST 4 CRA-6274-2018

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 listings policy. C.C. as per rules.

                                                             (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
                                                                        JUDGE
                      MISHRA




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Date: 2021.03.25
13:02:09 IST