Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandlal Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6452 of 2018
(NANDLAL CHOUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-07-2022
Shri Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned PL for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.7125/2022, repeat application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Nandlal
Choudhary.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.04.2018
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pavai District Panna in Special
Sessions Case No.13/2017 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge found
appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(N)(I)
of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 2
years, R.I. for 7 years and R.I. for 10 years respectively with fine of Rs.500/-
each with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 03.03.2020 gave liberty to the appellant to renew
the prayer after six months. That period has already gone. He further submitted
that the appellant has already suffered half of the jail sentence. The appellant has
been in custody since 24.02.2017. Hence prayed for suspension of the jail
sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal will
take time. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgement passed in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar
Signature Not Verified
SAN Pradesh in SPL (Crl.) No.4633/2021.
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.07.01 17:41:53 IST Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that
learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding the appellant guilty for
the aforesaid offences. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application for
suspension of sentence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case, Saudan Singh Vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh (Supra) only held that in the case other than life sentence, the
broad parameter of 50% of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for
grant of bail. Hon'ble Apex Court in that judgment do not held that in the case
other than life sentence, where appellant suffered half of the sentence, he should
be released on bail solely on that ground.
It is alleged that appellant abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years and
committed rape with her. In the school entry register (Ex.P-1), date of birth of
the prosecutrix is mentioned as 12.03.2002. On that basis, on the date of
incident, the age of prosecutrix was 14 years, 10 months and 8 days.
Prosecutrix in her statement clearly deposed that the appellant took her to Pavai
and he committed intercourse with her.
So, looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and the act of
appellant that he abducted a minor girl aged about 15 years and committed rape
with her, this Court is not inclined to suspend the jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, application (IA No.7125/2022) is rejected.
Appeal is already admitted, so list for final hearing in due course.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
mn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR
Date: 2022.07.01 17:41:53 IST
