Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-1957-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1957-2021
(SATISH AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Radheshyam Mourya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gopal Jaiswal, 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.6251/2021, an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Satish Ahirwar.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated
10.03.2021 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Chhatarpur (MP) in Special Session Case No.119/2018, by which the
appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 363 of IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-,
Section 366 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years
with fine of Rs. 2000/- and Section 5 (B)/6 of POCSO Act and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-. Default
stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 10.09.2018, prosecutrix aged
about 17 years and 9 months was missing from her house. She was
searched but not found. Then, FIR was lodged by her father vide
Annexure P-10. Thereafter, on 06.11.2018, prosecutrix was recovered at
railway station, Chhatarpur, Dastaybi Panchanama is vide Ex. P-1. It is
alleged by the prosecution that appellant/accused kidnapped the
prosecutrix and kept her in his home. Thereafter, appellant/accused
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.14 18:23:14 IST
2 CRA-1957-2021
committed intercourse with her continuously.
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. It is not proved beyound the reasonable doubt that at
the time of incident, prosecutrix was below 18 years. Although, learned
trail Court held that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was 17 years and
9 months of age. Although, prosecution produced the Bahadur Singh
(PW-3) who is the Assistant Teacher. He deposed before the trial Court
that date of birth of prosecutrix is 27.11.2000. He produced the
admission register vide Annexure P-8, but he did not disclose this fact
what is the source of information of date of birth of prosecutrix. He did
not produce any document in this regard. The mother and father of
prosecutrix did not disclose the date of birth of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix
herself executed marriage agreement vide Ex. D-12 and affidavit vide
Annexure D-14. She disclosed her date of birth is 04.06.2000. In this
regard, she produced Adhar Card and affidavit with notarized. So, it
appears that at the time of incident, prosecutrix may be above 18 years.
Apart from this, it is evident from the record that the prosecutrix is a
consenting party, she solemnized marriage with appellant/accused and
also executed marriage agreement with affidavit in this regard.
Appellant/accused produced some photographs regarding marriage,
which shows that prosecutrix had solemnize marriage with
appellant/accused at temple. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Appellant is in custody since
10.03.2021. During trial, he remained in jail from 06.11.2018 to
08.01.2019. This appeal is of the year 2021. There are fair chances to
succeed in the appeal. Final hearing of this appeal will take time.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.14 18:23:14 IST
3 CRA-1957-2021
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.
Hearing the argument of both the parties and this fact that age of
prosecutrix is disputed, prosecutrix herself admitted this fact prosecutrix
herself executed marriage agreement vide Ex. D-12 and affidavit vide
Annexure D-14, she disclosed her date of birth is 04.06.2000 and in this
regard she produced Adhar Card and affidavit with notarized,
prosecutrix had solemnized marriage with appellant/accused at temple,
appellant is in custody since 10.03.2021, during trial, he remained in jail
from 06.11.2018 to 08.01.2019 this appeal is of the year 2021, it is time
of COVID-19 due to this 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.6251/2021 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-Satish 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 25.10.2021 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
Signature Not Verified
suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.14 18:23:14 IST
4 CRA-1957-2021
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
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.14 18:23:14 IST
