Balwant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 841 MP

                                     1




          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     Criminal Appeal No.8249/2021
                 (Balwant Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 18.01.2022
      Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent State.

Heard on admission.

The appeal seems to be arguable, hence, admitted for hearing.

I.A. No.23842/2021 is taken up.

2. This is an application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for

suspension of custodial sentence of the appellant who stands convicted

under Section 370 r/w 120B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for

7 years with fine of Rs.2000 with default stipulation.

3. The allegation against the applicant is that he sold a girl for

consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to para 3, 7, 9, 20 and

31 of cross-examination of victim (PW/5) and submitted that it was

Dinesh who had purchased the girl for marriage. He also referred to

recovery memo Ex.P/8 wherein she has stated that Dinesh had

purchased her for Rs.3 lacs. It is also submitted that the prosecution

story reveals that the girl was never induced to leave her house by the

applicant. She was a major girl. She has admitted in her deposition

before the Court that she travelled from Chhindwara to Bhopal in a

train but never made a claimour to seek help of co-passengers. In

Court also she has come with vermilion (sindoor) on the parting-line

of her hairs, stating that she was happily leading married life with

Dinesh.

5. She had also admitted that once the police had called her along

with Dinesh and applicant at police station, where they accepted bribe

from the applicant and let them all go. His submission is that the

allegation against the applicant is only that he helped Dinesh but he

has not played any part in sale/purchase of a person. Therefore, his

sentence be suspended.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer representing the State referred to para 48

and 52 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the appellant was

the main accused who had sold the girl to one of his relative Dinesh

for a consideration of Rs.3 Lacs. He has again made an attempt to sell

her, but Dinesh refused to allow him which shows the intention of the

applicant; therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

7. After going through the statement of the victim particularly the

paragraphs referred to by the State, and the other evidence available

on record, I do not deem it a fit case to allow the suspension to the

applicant; therefore, I.A. No.23842/2021 is dismissed.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE

Loretta Digitally signed by MRS. LORETTA RAJ Date: 2022.01.19 15:00:25 +05'30'