Deepak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5128 MP

      :1:                                      Cr.A. No.10050-2019


 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE


                         Cr.A. No.10050-2019
  ( Deepak s/o Dhyan Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)

Indore, Dated: 07.9.2021
            Shri Gopal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Ms. Geetanajali Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for

the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.1075/2021, which is the first

application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of

jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Dhyan Singh s/o Jam

Singh.

The appellant has been convicted by the Additional

Session Judge, Dharampuri District-Dhar vide judgment dated

03.5.2019 passed in S.T. No.10/2017 and sentenced him as

under:-

     Conviction                           Sentence
 Section        Act      Imprisonment         Fine        Imprisonment

                                                          in lieu of fine
   363          IPC       5 Years RI        2,000/-       6 months RI
 366 (A)        IPC       5 Years RI         2,000/-      6 months RI
   506          IPC       2 Years RI         2,000/-      6 months RI
376 (2(I))      IPC       10 Years RI       10,000/-      6 months RI
   (N)
 5(L) r/w     POCSO       10 Years RI       10,000/-      6 months RI
  Sec.6

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

prosecutrix was a consenting party, which is apparent from her

deposition that she has stayed with the appellant for a period of

around six months and she had left her house at 4 O' clock in the :2: Cr.A. No.10050-2019

early hours of morning. It is also submitted that the appellant is in

jail since 3.5.2019 and as such he has already suffered around two

years and four months of incarceration and so far as the age of the

prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecutrix was major which is

apparent from the deposition of P.W.10 Dr. Babita, who has stated

that it is found that the age of the prosecutrix was around 18-20

years on 26.12.2016 whereas the date of incident is 2.7.2016. It is

further submitted that the appellant No.2 happens to be the father

of the appellant No.1 and although it is alleged by the prosecutrix

that both of them committed rape on her however mother of the

appellant No.1 had also accompanied them and it is not naturally

possible them while the wife of the appellant No.2 is still around.

In such circumstances, it is submitted that the application be

allowed and the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has

opposed the prayer.

On considering the aforesaid submissions, on perusal of

the record, this Court finds forced with the contention raised by the

counsel for the appellant, in the considered opinion of this Court, it

would be expedient to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant

No.2 Dhyan Singh s/o Jam Singh. Accordingly, the application

I.A.No.1075/2021 is allowed.

It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by the

appellant No.2 Dhyan Singh s/o Jam Singh in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with a solvent :3: Cr.A. No.10050-2019

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Court, for his regular appearance before concerned trial Court,

the execution of the custodial part of the sentence imposed against

the appellant shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this

appeal.

The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his

presence before the concerned trial Court on 22.12.2021 and on

all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the concerned Court

in this regard.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge

moni

Digitally signed by MONI RAJU Date: 2021.09.08 09:47:50 +05'30'