Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anju Thakur (Kumre) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-3613-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-3613-2021
(ANJU THAKUR (KUMRE) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-10-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Santosh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anoop Sonkar, learned P.L.for the respondent/State.
Ms. Kahkasha Mansoori, learned counsel for the complainant.
Record of the Court below is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
This appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.10961/2021, an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Anju Thakur (Kumre).
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated
13.08.2019 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act 2012 District
Chhindwara (MP), in SC No.300089/2014, by which the appellant has
been convicted for offence under Sections 366 of IPC and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and Section
5(L)/6 of POCSO Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years with fine of Rs. 2000/-. Default stipulations have also been
imposed by the trial Court.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 03.06.2014, prosecutrix
below 16 years was missing from her house. she was searched but not
fo und . Thereafter, prosecutrix was recovered. It is alleged by the
prosecution that appellant/accused kidnapped the prosecutrix.
Appellant/accused took her at various places and committed intercourse
with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.10.23 18:18:03 IST
2 CRA-3613-2021
trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the
appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in
proper perspective way. It is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt
that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years. Etram
Takam (PW/3) is a Principal of Primary School, Beradhana. He deposed
before the trial Court that the date of birth of prosecutrix is 23.12.1998,
he produced the date of birth register vide Ex. P-5 but he admitted this
fact that he did not enter the date of birth of prosecutrix at admission
register. He has no knowledge what is the source of information of date
of birth of prosecutrix. Parents of prosecutrix did not disclose the date of
birth of prosecutrix. Dr. S. Surana (PW-4) determined the age of
prosecutrix between 15 to 16 years. Due to this, the age of prosecutrix
may be above 18 years. It also appears from the record that prosecutrix
is wholly consenting party in this matter. Apart from this,
appellant/accused has solemnized marriage with proseuctrix and they
have been blessed two child. The counsel for the complainant is also
appeared before this Court. She admitted this fact that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.
Appellant/accused is in custody since 05.07.2019 till now. During trial,
he remained in jail from 19.06.2014 to 25.04.2015 and 07.12.2017 to
06.01.2018. So, he has served almost 3 years sentence out of 10 years
jail sentence. 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 complainant has
Signature Not Verified
SAN
no objection to suspend the execution of sentence of appellant and grant
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.10.23 18:18:03 IST
3 CRA-3613-2021
bail.
Considering the argument of both the parties and this fact that the
age of prosecutrix is disputed, appellant/accused and prosecutrix has
already solemnized marriage, learned counsel for the complainant
submits that the prosecutrix is residing in the house of appellant/accused,
appellant/accused has served almost 3 years sentence out of 10 years
jail sentence, 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.10961/2021 is allowed subject to deposit of
fine amount, if not already deposited. The custodial sentence awarded to
the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
Appellant-Anju Thakur (Kumre) 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 20.12.2021 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.
In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the
appellant 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
appellant by the jail doctor before his release.
Signature Not Verified
2 . The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.10.23 18:18:03 IST
4 CRA-3613-2021
'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 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: 2021.10.23 18:18:03 IST
