Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkaran Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-9774-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-9774-2019
(RAJKARAN YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
7
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Tausif Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Record of the Courts below has been received.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.13441/2021, which is an application filed
by the appellant under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Accused/appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment
dated 27.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Luvkushnagar,
Disrict-Chhatarpur (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.8/2017 under
Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, Section 366 of IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with
fine of Rs.1000/- and Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-
respectively with default stipulations.
As per prosecution story, on 28.01.2015, prosecutrix is aged about
20 years old was missing from her house. She was searched but not
found. Then FIR was lodged. Thereafter, prosecutrix was recovered on
01.08.2016. It is alleged by the prosecution that appellant/accused
kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her various places. Thereafter,
committed intercourse with her. During the investigation, it is found that
the age of the prosecutrix is below 16 years.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2021.09.16 18:10:44 IST
2 CRA-9774-2019
Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that learned
trial Court committed grave error to convict and sentence to the
appellant/accused. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence
in perspective way. It is not proved that at the time of the incident,
prosecutrix was below 18 years. Saroj Gupta (P.W.5) is the Principal of
Government Girls Primary School, Kherakasaar deposed before the trial
Court that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 30.05.1999. She
produced the admission register vide Exhibit-P/6 in this regard but she
admitted this fact that at the time of admission, she was not posted at that
school, she has no knowledge what is the source of date of birth of the
prosecutrix, the parents of the prosecutrix did not disclose the date of
birth of the prosecutrix. It appears from the evidence of the mother of
prosecutrix Smt. Halkibai (P.W.2) that at the time of the incident,
prosecutrix was above 18 years. So the age of prosecutrix may be above
18 years. Prosecutrix is a consenting party in this matter. Prosecutrix
and appellant/accused loved each other, so she voluntarily went with the
applicant/accused at various places, She was stayed with the
appellant/accused for 1 year and 6 months, she did not raise any
objection during this period but when appellant/accused injured in the
accident and he returned his home, then prosecutrix was recovered and
the mother of the prosecutrix was pressurized to the prosecutrix to give
false statement against the appellant/accused. There is material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. This appeal is
of the year 2019. The appellant is in jail since 27.09.2019 till now.
During the trial, he remained in jail from 23.10.2016 to 19.5.2017. It is
the time of Covid-19 pandemic, due to this final hearing of this appeal
will take considerable time for its final disposal. There is fair chance to
succeed in the appeal. There is no likelihood of his absconding and
Signature Not Verified
SAN
tampering with the evidence. Under these circumstances, if the sentence
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2021.09.16 18:10:44 IST
3 CRA-9774-2019
of the appellant/accused is not suspended, his right to file appeal will be
futile. Hence, prayer is made for suspension of jail sentence and grant of
bail of present accused/appellant.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, on perusal of the record and the fact that the age of the
prosecutrix is disputed, it is mentioned in the FIR at the time of the
incident, prosecutrix was 20 years, prosecutrix stayed with the
appellant/accused for 1 years and 6 months, he is in jail since
27.09.2019 till now, during the trial, he remained in jail from 23.10.2016
to 19.5.2017, it is a time of Covid-19 pandemic, this appeal is of the
year 2018 and final hearing of this appeal will take time, without
commenting anything on the merit of the case, the said I.A. is allowed.
It is ordered that subject to payment of fine amount, if not already
deposited, the execution of jail sentence of accused/appellant-Rajkaran
Yadav shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 26.10.2021 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.
I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)'
accused/appellant shall also comply with the rules and norms of social
Signature Not Verified
distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
SAN
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2021.09.16 18:10:44 IST
4 CRA-9774-2019
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
accused/appellant by the jail doctor before his release.
2. Accused/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 accused/appellant is suffering from 'Corona
Vi r u s disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned
authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Nitesh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2021.09.16 18:10:44 IST
