Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-3922-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3922-2020
(DEVENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
7
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-05-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Subodh Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Record of the court below is available on record.
Appeal is already admitted for hearing on 21.1.2021.
Heard on I.A.No.2585/2021, which is an 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 II Addl. Sessions Judge, Multai, District
Betul (MP), in S.T.No.175/2018, vide its judgment dated 4.2.2020, convicting
the appellant/accused under Ssection 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced
him to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default
stipulation, as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
As per prosecution case, on 16.4.2018, prosecutrix (PW/1) aged 30
years, lodged the report at Police Station Amla. It is alleged by her that she is
familiar to accused/appellant since 3-4 years. Accused/appellant committed
intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage since 2014. On 16.2.2018,
accused/appellant committed intercourse with her without her consent and
refused to marry with her. His marriage has been fixed with another girl.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial
Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the accused/appellant.
Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way.
Accused/appellant did not commit intercourse with prosecutrix on the pretext
of marriage. They established voluntarily relations with each other.
Prosecutrix (PW/1) admitted this fact that accused/appellant committed
intercourse with her with her consent. Mother of prosecutrix PW/2, also
Signature Not Verified
SAN
stated same fact and also disclosed that prosecutrix was not prevented by her
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.05.10 11:07:38 IST
2 CRA-3922-2020
to go with accused/appellant, so this is a matter of consent. Prosecutrix is
aged 30 years, grown up and educated lady. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She
pressurized the accused/appellant to solemnize marriage, but parents of
accused/appellant are not ready. Accused/appellant remained in jail during
trial from 18.4.2018 to 1.5.2018 and at present he is in jail since 4.2.2020.
This appeal is of year 2020 and trial will take time to conclude due to
COVID-19. 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 his jail
sentence and grant of bail.
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 and the fact that prosecutrix (PW/1) is aged
30 years, grown up and educated lady, accused/appellant and prosecutrix
established relations since 2014, when marriage of accused/appellant has been
fixed, then prosecutrix lodged the report, accused/appellant remained in jail
during trial from 18.4.2018 to 1.5.2018 and at present he is in jail since
4.2.2020 , this appeal is of year 2020, 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-Devendra
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 amount of Rs.
50,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
trial court on 5.7.2021 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates, as
may be fixed by the trial court in this regard.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.05.10 11:07:38 IST
3 CRA-3922-2020
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. The accused/appellant shall intimate that marriage has been
performed.
I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the
applicant 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
applicant 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 Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2021.05.10 11:07:38 IST
