Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul @ Kalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.2430/2019
(Rahul @ Kalu Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 29.4.2022
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8957/2021, which is fifth application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of suspension of sentence
filed on behalf of appellant.
Appellant's first application filed under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.5.2019, while
second, third and fourth applications were dismissed vide orders dated
9.9.2019, 30.1.2020 and 18.12.2020 respectively on the ground that
there was no substantial change in circumstances.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section ¾ of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to
undergo seven years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation,
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2019
passed by 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar in
S.T.No.7/2018.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant forcefully dragged
the minor prosecutrix in his house and wrongfully confined her,
sexually assaulted her and thereafter committed rape upon her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a
dispute going on between appellant's family and prosecutrix's family
as appellant's maternal uncle's son Kuldeep ran away with
(Rahul @ Kalu Vs. State of M.P.)
prosecutrix's uncle's daughter Sonu. Prosecutrix herself admitted the
aforesaid fact in her cross-examination. She has also stated that
Kuldeep did not run away with Sonu. Report of this case could not be
lodged. Prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident as
prosecution has not material evidence with regard to age of the
prosecutrix. Principal of Shaskiya Madhyamik Shala, Badda,
Mangilal (PW-4) has admitted in his statement that date of birth of
prosecutrix was written on the basis of last school leaving certificate,
but the same could not be produced. Prosecutrix has admitted that she
was having relations with the appellant, despite objection of her
parents. Learned trial Court has committed error in holding the
appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. Appellant has suffered
more than four years of the sentence awarded to him as per report
received from the concerned Jail, which is more than 50% of the total
sentence awarded to him. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal
in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant
prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to
the appellant.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has opposed
the prayer and submits that looking to the nature of allegations the
appellant is not entitled for bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, statement of
prosecutrix (PW-1) and also statement of Mangilal (PW-4) alongwith
period of custody of the appellant, which is more than 50% of the total
(Rahul @ Kalu Vs. State of M.P.)
sentence awarded to him, but without commenting on merits of the
case, the application I.A.No.8957/2021 is allowed and jail sentence of
the appellant shall remain suspended.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if
already not deposited, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of trial Court, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court
firstly on 4.7.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the
Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.8957/2021 is allowed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.04.30
11:17:48 +05'30'
