Shivam Sarathe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1843 MP

                                      1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 1305 of 2021
           (SHIVAM SARATHE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 09-02-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Radheshyam Mourya, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri S.K.Malvi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for complainant. I.A.No.2270/2022 and I.A.No.2271/2022 filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant are taken up seeking permission to compound the

matter on the basis of compromise.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 450 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.2500/-, under Section 376(2)(j) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years and fine of Rs.5000/, with default stipulation.

On more than one occasion, specific question was asked to the counsel for the parties as to whether the offences found proved against the appellant can be compounded in the teeth of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. Sadly, counsel has not chosen to reply the specific question.

Considering the nature of offence and in absence of assistance, the applications cannot be allowed. Accordingly, I.A.No.2270/2022 and I.A.No.2271/2022 are hereby rejected.

Also heard on I.A. No.5880/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Shivam Sarathe is taken up.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Court's below opinion in the impugned judgment, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 21/03/1999. Thus, at the time of incident, she was approximately 17 years 4 months old. By taking this Court to the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2), it is argued that its a case of consent. The Court below has committed an error in determining the age of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix and her father filed affidavits stating that they have no grievance against the

present appellant. The prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage and residing elsewhere. The final hearing of this appeal will take time. The remaining jail sentence of this appellant may be suspended.

Shri S.K.Malvi, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the same on the basis of findings relating to DNA report and other findings in the impugned judgment.

Shri Vishwakarma, learned counsel for complainant supported the I.A. and urged that affidavits relied upon by counsel for appellant are indeed filed by complainant and her father.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the present appellant. Accordingly, IA No.5880/2021 is allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.

The execution of jail sentence of appellant Shivam Sarathe is hereby suspended and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Narsinghpur on 29.08.2022 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                        (SUJOY PAUL)                                   (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                           JUDGE                                               JUDGE

                                     manju




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.02.10 13:24:31 IST