Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Purohit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7774 of 2021
(NARENDRA PUROHIT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 13-04-2022
Shri Kamlesh Kori, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State.
Shri Yogendra Shrivastava, Advocate for the complainant.
Heard o n I.A. No. 2901/2022, first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer 03 years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/-, under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced
to suffer 07 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 376(D) of IPC and
sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- and under Section
5(g) and 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.50,000/- with default stipulations respectively vide judgment dated 13/11/2021
passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act and IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
District-Datia in Special Case No.43/2014.
The prosecution story somewhat is chequered in nature though found
proved by the Court below.
A s per prosecution story, on 23/10/2013 complainant, his wife and
prosecutrix were sleeping in their house. At about 4-5 early morning, both
complainant and his wife went to respond the nature's call. When they came back,
they found prosecutrix missing. Despite search for couple of days, when the
prosecutrix could not be recovered, then the FIR was lodged on 25/10/2013. The
prosecutrix was recovered on 04/11/2013 and her statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11/11/2013. Later, on 16/11/2013, her statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Initially, FIR was registered at Crime No.143/2013 under Section 363 and
366 of IPC on 25/10/2013. Thereafter, on submission of final report, case was
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. During pendency of trial as late as on
25/10/2021, charges were amended and new charges under Section 376-D of IPC
and 5(g)/ 6 of POCSO Act were added. The judgement was delivered on
13/11/2021, hence, for the alleged incident of the year 2013, appellant was
convicted on 13/11/2021 i.e. after 08 years. Indeed, during trial appellant remained
in jail from 12/11/2013 to 28/02/2014. Now, since the date of judgment, appellant
is undergoing jail incarceration.
Shri Manish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant while taking exception to the
impugned judgment submits that appellant Narendra Purohit was initially charged
for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC but stood convicted
for the offence under Section 376-D of IPC and 5(g)/ 6 of POCSO Act in absence
of any incriminating material attributable to the appellant in that behalf.
Besides, picking hole in the impugned judgment learned counsel interalia
contended that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity of approach and
based on surmises and conjectures. Relevant piece of evidence has been ignored
while convicting the appellant. Referring to the statements of the prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel further contended
that there is a sharp variation in both the statements recorded within the span of 12
days. The story points under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is altogether different from
the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
The MLC report and DNA profile sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory
d o not suggest complicity of the appellant in the alleged act of rape. Even her
ocular evidence during trial as discussed by the trial Court in paragraph-21, does
not spell out any finding of committing rape against the appellant. Appellant is 31
years of age and has undergone 07 months and 10 days jail incarceration. He has
no criminal antecedents. Further jail incarceration in the company of hardened
criminals shall not only make him to suffer mental agony but also cause physical
torture. Moreover, there is no likelihood of early disposal of appeal in the near
future. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant on such terms and conditions this Court
deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the
application supporting the impugned judgment submits that regard being had to the
evidence placed on record, complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime cannot
be ruled out at this stage. The judgment rendered by the Court below is absolutely
impeccable and based on proper evaluation of evidence brought on record.
However, he fairly submits that there is no criminal antecedents of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the application and
prayed for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from
commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the case,
but regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the
fact that appellant has suffered 07 years 10 days jail incarceration, I.A. No.
2901/2022 deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court on 23/06/2022 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
( i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing the
appellant, the medical examination of the appellant be conducted through the jail
doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-
19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be
undertaken immediately. If not, the appellant shall be released on bail in terms of
the conditions imposed in this order ;
(ii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. No. 2901/2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
vc
VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
2022.04.13
17:40:26 +05'30'
