Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-3622-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 3622 of 2021
(MANISH RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 30-11-2021
Shri S.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer 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.11024/2021, which is first application filed by
the appellant under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of execution
of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Accused/appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment dated
18.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Atrocities) Act Raisen,
Disrict-Raisen (M.P.) in SC ATR No.66/2019 under Section 376 of IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine
of Rs.1000/-, Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 9/10 of
POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
As per prosecution story, complainant along with her husband went to
village Dahod for doing labour work and they took the house of present
appellant on rent. On 13.04.2019, at about 09:00 pm, when complainant was
cooking meal then present appellant called the daughter of complainant for
sweeping in his room. Thereafter, prosecutrix went to the room of appellant.
At about 09:30 pm, her husband came along with prosecutrix, who was
weeping, then she asked that why she is weeping, thereafter, prosecutrix
narrated the whole incident to her parents that when she was sweeping in the
room of present appellant then present appellant closed the door and he
touched her private part. On her shriek, her father came there and asked the
present appellant that what he was doing with the prosecutrix then he bolted
2 CRA-3622-2021
the door inside.
Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that learned trial
C o u r t committed grave error to convict and sentence to the
appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in
perspective way. PW-1 is child and tutored witness, so the evidence of
prosecutrix is not reliable. In para-9 of her cross-examination, prosecutrix
denied whole the incident. PW-2 is mother of prosecutrix but she is not eye
witness of the alleged incident. PW-3 is father of prosecutrix, he deposed
before the trial Court that at that time, he reached on the incident place but
prosecutrix admitted this fact in para-9 of her cross-examination that at the
time of incident, her father was in Mandideep. Prosecutrix also stated that her
father name is Bhagwandas but prior, she stated her father name as
Radheshyam at the behest of her mother. In para-12 of her cross-
examination, she also admitted this fact that government advocate suggested
her to give evidence. So, she is a tutored witness and she has given her
statement against the appellant at the instance of her government counsel. It is
admitted fact that prosecutrix and her family members are tenant of the house
of present appellant. Guddu (PW-5) deposed that prosecutrix and her family
are tenant of present appellant and mother of prosecutrix had given the said
room in rent to her sister-in-law and in this regard, she obtained money from
her but she did not give the said money to the present appellant. He also
admitted this fact in his cross-examination that complainant was keeping
grudge with the present appellant. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of witnesses. This appeal is of the year 2021. The
appellant is in jail since 14.04.2019 to till now. Final hearing of this appeal will
take considerable time for its final disposal. There is fair chance to succeed in
the appeal. Under these circumstances, i f the sentence of the
appellant/accused is not suspended, purpose to file this appeal will be futile.
Hence, prayer is made for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant
of bail of present accused/appellant.
3 CRA-3622-2021
Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the same submitting
that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on
proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and the appellant
has committed grave offence. Therefore, sentence of the appellant should not
be suspended.
Hearing arguments of both the parties and the fact that in para-9 of
cross-examination of prosecutrix she denied whole the incident, PW-2 is
mother of prosecutrix but she is not eye witness of the said incident, PW-3 is
father of prosecutrix, he deposed before the trial Court that at that time, he
reached on the incident place but prosecutrix admitted this fact in para-9 of
her cross-examination that at the time of incident her father was in
Mandideep, it is admitted fact that prosecutrix and her family members are
tenant of the present appellant, appellant is in jail since 14.04.2019 to till now,
this appeal is of the year 2021 and final hearing of this appeal will take time,
but without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A.No.11024/2021 is allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant-Manish
Rathore shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
trial Court on 08.03.2022 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates,
as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard.
In case, accused/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.
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
4 CRA-3622-2021
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
sp
Digitally signed by SAVITRI
PATEL
Date: 2021.12.03 18:07:29
+05'30'
