Vikram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1372 MP

                                    1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 5585 of 2021
             (VIKRAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Gwalior, Dated : 31-01-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Kunar Sahab Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Vijay Sundram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

Shri Shishupal Singh Gurjar, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2.

Heard on I.A.No.29253/2021, first application for suspension of

sentence under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2-N) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 03/09/2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Gohad District Bhind (M.P.) in Special Case No. 03/2020 (POCSO).

Appellant so far has undergone jail incarceration for ten months. As per the prosecution story at about 10.00 am on 28/12/2017 the prosecutrix told her family members that her brother called at Gwalior and

family people allowed her to go with her younger brother at bus stand Malanpur where it is alleged that she met the appellant-accused Vikram Singh at bus stand. He was talking to her. He is alleged to have manipulated her under pretext of marrying and had fled away therefrom. Thereafter, the entire story was revealed by younger brother to the family members while returned back home. Initially case was registered for missing person at Case No. 18/2017 but thereafter, the case was registered against the appellant-accused at Police Station Malanpur District Bhind (M.P.) at Crime No. 222/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. After some time, prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. She had belied the story of the prosecution and has stated to have gone with the appellant on her own

volition. Thereafter, they have married at Vrindavan and lived as husband and wife. During trial, she has reiterated the same facts in her deposition. As such, she has belied the story of the prosecution. However, conviction is based on the fact that she was minor at the time of her abduction.

Counsel for the appellant points out that apart from the statement of the prosecutrix that she is major, in her ossification test she has been found to be

of the age between 19-21 years, as deposed by Dr. R.K. Singh (P.W.10) Radiologist. There was no authentic conclusive evidence on record as regard the date of birth to establish that prosecutrix was minor. The statement of the Principal of Saraswati Shishu Mandir school Malanpur, District Bhind (M.P.), Dhaniram (P.W.8) has been recorded who has deposed that prosecutrix had taken admission in the school but at the time of admission neither the birth certificate nor any document was produced as regards her date of birth. With the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the appellant submits that findings of the court below that the prosecutrix was minor is contrary to the record. It is submitted that in fact appellant and prosecutrix are now husband and wife, as such the sentence may be suspended.

Counsel for the complainant has no objection, if this Court is inclined to grant suspension of sentence. Learned counsel also admits that the prosecutrix has married with the appellant.

However, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer supporting the impugned judgment with the submission that the Trial Court did not commit any error while concluding that the prosecutrix was minor. As such, irrespective of her age, appellant has rightly been found to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2-N) of the IPC. Hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though, this Court refrains from commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case, but regard being had to the evidence on record and submissions advanced, particularly there is no objection as stated by counsel for the

complainant and the factum that appellant and prosecutrix are married, this Court is of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. Consequently, I.A. is hereby allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac 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 11/04/2022 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 IA stands allowed and disposed of.

   (ROHIT ARYA)                                    (SATISH KUMAR SHARMA)
      JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

Prachi

     PRACHI
     MISHRA
     2022.02.01
     11:01:35
     +05'30'