Gorelal Alias Bhurri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6717 MP

                                                                       1                                  CRA-64-2016
                                            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        CRA-64-2016
                                                  (GORELAL ALIAS BHURRI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                    7
                                    Jabalpur, Dated : 23-10-2021
                                          Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                          Shri P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
                                          Shri Lokesh Jain, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

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.16549/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Gorelal alias Bhurri The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated 10.12.2021 passed by learned Session Judge, Shahdol, District-Shahdol (MP) in S.C. No.112/2013, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, Section 506-II of IPC and has been sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 21/10/2012, the appellant-accused committed intercourse with the prosecutrix below 16 years. Thereafter prosecutrix became pregnant. On 08/03/2013, she disclosed all the incident to her parents, thereafter, FIR was lodged.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence the appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way. The trial Court did not consider the evidence in regard to the age of the prosecutrix, although, PW-1 and PW-8 are teachers and they disclosed the date of birth of prosecutrix as 29/06/1997 but they admitted this fact that at Signature Not Verified SAN the time of admission they were not posted at that school, due to which the

Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2021.10.23 19:37:40 IST 2 CRA-64-2016 parents of prosecutrix did not disclose the date of birth of prosecutrix, thus, the source of information of date of birth of prosecutrix is not true. She may be above 18 years of age at the time of incident. It is admitted fact that incident is occurred on 21/10/2012. Prosecutrix disclosed about the incident when she became pregnant, so prousecutrix is consenting party. In this matter, there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of

witnesses.. The appellant-accused is in custody since 10/12/2015. During the trial he remained in jail, so he has served almost 6 years sentence out of 10 years. This appeal is of the year 2016. This appeal is of the year 2016. It will take time for final disposal. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. 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. Considering the argument of both the parties and evidence and also the facts that age of prosecutrix is disputed, incident is occurred on 21/10/2012 but prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to her parents, when she became pregnant, she discloses the incident to her parents, the appellant-accused has served almost 6 years sentence out of 10 years, this appeal is of the year 2016, final hearing of this appeal will take time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of 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.16549/2021 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-Gorelal alias Bhurri 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2021.10.23 19:37:40 IST 3 CRA-64-2016 Court on 12/01/2022 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.

I n 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.

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 the matter for final hearing in due course. C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

kundan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2021.10.23 19:37:40 IST