Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rani Alias Sunita Tiwari Alias Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-9316-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-9316-2019
(RANI ALIAS SUNITA TIWARI ALIAS KOL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
9
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rambihari Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Reji Mathai, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.10252/2020, which is second application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2-Sonu @
Harinarayan.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellants/accused against judgment dated 21.10.2019
passed by learned Special Judge/VI Additional Sessions Judge Katni, District
Katni (MP), in Special Case No.2700097/15, by which the appellant No.2 has
b een convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, Section 365 of IPC, and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, Sections 366(A)
of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and 370 (1-4) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-. Default stipulations have also been imposed by the trial Court.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 03.02.2015 at about 9:00
O'clock, complainant-Sunita Soni (PW/2) lodged a report in the Police
Station Kotwali Katni, District Katni, that accused/appellant No.2 along with
other co-accused Shambhu Jaiswal, Rakesh Nayak, Rani @ Sunita Tiwari @
Kol, Mohan Kumawat and Mukesh hatched up a conspiracy, allured the
prosecutrix, who is minor daughter of complainant, kept in her house till
21.02.2015 and handed over to various persons for doing dirty work.
Thereafter, marriage of prosecutrix was performed with co-accused Mukesh
after taking Rs.1,80,000/-. Thereafter, case has been registered against the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
present appellant No.2 and other co-accused in the concerned police station.
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.16 17:32:59 IST
2 CRA-9316-2019
Thereafter, co-accused committed sexual harassment with the prosecutrix.
After completion of investigation, case was committed to the Court of
Session.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that learned trial Court
committed grave error to convict and sentenced the appellant No.2. There is
no specific role attributed against the accused/appellant No.2. No case is
made out against the present appellant No.2 for the aforesaid offences
because prosecutrix has voluntarily solemnized marriage with co-accused
Mukesh and she voluntarily had gone to Jaipur with the co-accused Mukesh.
PW-1 deposed in her deposition before the trial Court in para 16 that her
marriage was solemnized with co-accused Mukesh with her own consent and
in para 18 she stated that she voluntarily stayed in the house of appellant No-1
and voluntarily had gone at Rajashtan. PW-1 alleged against the appellant
No.2 that appellant No.2 committed intercourse with her but learned trial
Court did not believe this piece of evidence of prosecutrix/PW-1. No other
allegation against the appellant No.2/accused. So, there is no case is made out
against the appellant No.2/accused. Appellant No.2/accused is in custody
since 21.10.2019 till now and during trial, he remained in jail from 14.06.2015
to 17.05.2017. This appeal is of the year 2019. It is time of COVID-19
pandemic, due to which, final hearing of this appeal will take time. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. He further submits that the execution of jail sentence of appellant
No.1 has already been suspended vide order dated 14.01.2020 by this
Court. There are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. Therefore, the
application filed on behalf of the appellant No.2 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 opposes the application.
Hearing argument of both the parties and this fact that prosecutrix/PW-
1 deposed before the trial Court that appellant No.2/accused committed
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.16 17:32:59 IST
3 CRA-9316-2019
intercourse with her. Except this allegation, prosecutrix/PW-1 did not depose
any fact against the appellant No.2/accused. Learned trail Court itself did not
believe this piece of evidence. Execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1
has already been suspended vide order dated 14.01.2020 by this Court.
Appellant No.2/accused is in custody since 21.10.2019 till now and during
trial, he remained in jail from 14.06.2015 to 17.05.2017. This appeal is of the
year 2019. It is time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to which, 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 custodial sentence awarded to the appellant No.2 and grant bail
to him.
Consequently, I.A. No.10252/2020 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 No.2-Sonu @ Harinarayan 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 27.10.2021 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.
I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the
appellant No.2 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 No.2 by the jail doctor before his release.
2 . The appellant No.2 shall not be released if he is suffering from
'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2021.09.16 17:32:59 IST
4 CRA-9316-2019
3. If it is found that the appellant No.2 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: 2021.09.16 17:32:59 IST
