Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-4758-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 4758 of 2021
(PREM AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-11-2021
Shri Ashish Kurmi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Jeetendra Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the complainant.
Record of the trial Court is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing
Also heard on I.A. No.14705/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Pem Ahirwar.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 04.08.2021
passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act 2012) Sagar, District-Sagar
(MP) in Special Case No.45/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted
for offence under Sections 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-,Sections 366 of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section
376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- Default
stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 15.04.2017, prosecutrix aged 17
years, was missing from her house, she was searched but not found.
Thereafter FIR was lodged. On 28.04.2017, prosecutrix was recovered. it is
alleged by prosecution that appellant/accused kidnapped the prosecutrix and
committed intercourse with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial
Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant/accused.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way. It is
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.11.23 17:33:57 IST
2 CRA-4758-2021
not proved that at the time of incident prosecutrix was below 18 years.
Prosecutrix is a consenting party in this matter. prosecutrix went with
appellant/accused to various places but she did not raise any objection.
Actually, prosecutrix and appellant/accused already solemnized marriage with
each other. They have been blessed with one child. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.
Appellant/accused is in custody since 04.08.2021. During trial, he remained in
jail from 29.04.2017 to 30.11.2017 and 04.12.2020 to 11.05.2021. This
appeal is of the year 2021. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal.
Final hearing of this appeal will take time. Therefore, the application filed on
behalf of the appellant may be allowed and the period of his remaining jail
sentence may be suspended further and he may be released on bail.
Learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that appellant/accused
and prosecutrix already solemnized marriage. They have been blessed with
one child. Prosecutrix is residing in the house of appellant/accused.
Therefore, he has no objection if execution of jail sentence of appellant is
suspended.
Hearing argument of both the parties and this fact that the age of
prosecutrix is disputed, it appears that prosecutrix is a consenting party in
this matter, apart from this, prosecutrix and appellant/accused already
solemnized marriage, they have been blessed with one child,
appellant/accused is in custody since 04.08.2021, during trial, he remained in
jail from 29.04.2017 to 30.11.2017 and 04.12.2020 to 11.05.2021, this appeal
is of the year 2021, final hearing of this appeal will take time, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am o f the considered
opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of jail sentence
awarded to the appellant and grant bail to him.
Consequently, I.A. No.14705/2021 is allowed subject to deposit of
fine amount, if not already deposited. The custodial sentence awarded to the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.11.23 17:33:57 IST
3 CRA-4758-2021
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
Appellant-Prem Ahirwar be released from custody subject to his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only), with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
trial Court. The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the trial
Court on 21.02.2022 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates, as
may be given by the trial Court in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.11.23 17:33:57 IST
