Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2021
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 CRA-1617-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-1617-2017
(SACHIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Ms. Neetu Prajapati, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav, P.L. for the respondent-State.
Record of the Court below has been received.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A. No.
3630/2021, which is sixth application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant. The first application was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 21.07.2017, second bail application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.2018, the third bail
application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2018,
the forth bail application was dismissed on merit after considering each
and every aspect of the matter and the fifth bail application was
dismissed as withdrawn vider order dated 16.10.2020.
The appeal has been preferred under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C.,1973 b y the appellant/accused against judgment dated
30.03.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, of ST/SC ACt, Burhanpur,
Distt.-Burhanpur (M.P.) in Session case No 01/2016, by which the
appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 363 of
IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.
2,000/- and Section 366 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, Section 376(2)(G) of IPC and has
been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-,
Section 506 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years
with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and has been
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL
Date: 2021.09.25 12:38:51 IST
2 CRA-1617-2017
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with
default stipulations respectively.
Prosecution case, in short, is that on 09.10.2015, when prosecutirx
aged below 16 years was going to her school then appellant/accused met
her and told her to go with him then she refused. Thereafter,
appellant/accused took her at forest and committed intercourse with her
and threatened to her.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that appellant-
accused has falsely been implicated in this case. Appellant-accused is in
jail since 12.10.2015. So, he has served his substantial jail sentence. It is
further submitted that no internal and external injury was found on the
body of the prosecutrix, learned trial Court has convicted the and
appellant, which is contrary to law. There are so many contradictions
and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witness, so no case is made
out against the appellant-accused. This appeal is of the year 2017. There
are fair chances to succeed in the appeal. It is time of COVID-19
pandemic, due to this, final hearing of this appeal will take
time. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellant may be
allowed and execution of remaining jail sentence may be suspended
and he may be released on bail.
PL for the respondent/State has opposed the application stating that
earlier I.A. No.2681/2019 was dismissed on merit after considering each
and every aspect of the matter, so there is no change circumstances to
suspend the execution of jail sentence of the appellant-accused.
Hearing arguments of both the parties and and the fact that earlier
application I.A. No. 2681/2019 was dismissed on merit after considering
each and every aspect of the matter, till now there is no change in the
circumstance to suspend the execution of jail sentence of the appellant-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
accused except the detention period of the appellant. As far as arguments of
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL
Date: 2021.09.25 12:38:51 IST
3 CRA-1617-2017
the appellant is concerned to serving a considerable substantial part of
his jail sentence, in the case of Dashrath Vs. State of M.P. in
Cr.A.No.1248/2005 passed by full Bench of this High Court, it is held
that the conviction of the accused cannot be suspended solely on the
ground of his having served sentence of any particular period or one half
of the maximum sentence, inclusive or exclusive of remission.
Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant and the IA.No. 3630/2021
is hereby dismissed.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
R
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ROSHNI SINGH PATEL
Date: 2021.09.25 12:38:51 IST
