Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahrukh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6569 of 2019
(SHAHRUKH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 09-07-2022
Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.6790/2022, which is 3rd repeat application filed under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C, for suspension of jail sentence moved on behalf of
the appellant - Shahrukh.
H is first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
03.12.2019 while his second application was dismissed as withdrawn by order
dated 01.03.2021.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
u/S 363 & 366 of IPC and Sec 5L/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 03 years with fine of
Rs.2000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 3000/- with default stipulation
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed in
ST No. 62/2017.
Prosecution story in brief is that appellant kidnapped/abducted minor
prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was major at
the time of incident and she herself in para 10 of her cross-examination admitted
that she was having affair with the appellant and appellant has given
Signature Not Verified
SAN mangalsutra to her which she has worn by her own will. Prosecutrix
Digitally signed by GEETA
PRAMOD
accompanied the appellant to several public places with public conveyance but
Date: 2022.07.11 13:44:20 IST
she has never raised any alarm. Hence she was a consenting party. Prosecution
has failed to prove the fact that on the date of incident she was below 18 years
of age as nothing has been produced on record except school scholar
register(Ex. P-16) wherein her date of birth was written as 09.09.1999. Nothing
has been produced on record to substantiate that her date of birth has wrongly
been mentioned. Even otherwise, aappellant is in custody since 17.05.2017 and
has suffered more than 50% of the sentence awarded to him. There is no
likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future. With the aforesaid, prayer is
made for suspension of the remaining custodial period of the appellant and
grant of the bail to the appellant.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/state opposes the prayer for
suspension of remaining jail sentence with the submission that prosecutrix was
minor at the time of incident and offences alleged against the appellant are
serious in nature. Hence, no case for suspension of sentence and grant of the
bail to the appellant is made out .
Having considered the rival submission, evidence produced on record,
age of the prosecutrix, her statement recorded during trial and also considering
the period of custody suffered by the appellant, this Court is of the considered
view that it is a fit case for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter
I.A.No.6790/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited he shall be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
Signature Not Verified
SAN
of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) along with a solvent surety in the
Digitally signed by GEETA
PRAMOD
Date: 2022.07.11 13:44:20 IST
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court firstly on 28.09.2022 and on such other dates, as may
be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by GEETA
PRAMOD
Date: 2022.07.11 13:44:20 IST
