Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9237 MP

                                                                       1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                               CRA No. 7521 of 2021
                                                 (PAPPU @ MEGHRAJ SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   Dated : 09-07-2022
                                         Shri Karunanidhi Bundela, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                         Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal seems to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing. Also heard o n IA No.22013/2021, an application for suspension of custodial sentence passed against the appellant Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16/11/2021 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act & SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District-Betul (M.P) in SCATR No.200090/2015, whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 343, 372 & 373 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is alleged that co- accused Tulsi sold the prosecutrix who was minor to appellant Pappu @

Meghraj Sharma, thereafter, appellant Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma committed rape with her and sometime later appellant sold the prosecutrix to co-accused Arvind Sharma, but prosecutrix in her Court statement recorded by the trial Court on 27/05/2015 clearly denied from the fact that the appellant Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma committed rape with her or appellant purchased the Signature Not Verified SAN prosecutrix or kept her in his house. Prosecutrix also deposed that she did not Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.07.09 17:17:24 IST know the appellant Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma. Thereafter, for the first time on

11/10/2021 at the time of trial of co-accused Tulsi, prosecutrix in her cross- examination deposed that appellant Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma kept her for 20- 25 days in his house and thereafter he sold her to co-accused Arvind Sharma. In these statements also prosecutrix did not state that appellant was the same Pappu Sharma who kept the prosecutrix in his house. So from the statement of prosecutrix also it cannot be assumed that it was the appellant who purchased the prosecutrix and thereafter he sold the prosecutrix to co-accused Arvind Sharma. Even in her second statement prosecutrix did not depose that appellant committed rape with her. Even father of the prosecutrix Bhola (PW-2) and sister of the proseuctrix Vimla (PW-4) also did not support the prosecution

story regarding involvement of the appellant in the crime. The trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. The appellant is in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 16/11/2021. Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted from the prosecution evidence, the guilt of the appellant is clearly proved, so the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence, so the sentence of the appellant should not be suspended.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, contention of learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that prosecutrix in her statement recorded by the trial Court on 27/05/2015 has clearly stated that she did not know the appellant Pappu @ Meghraj Sharma and also deposed that appellant did not Signature Not Verified SAN

commit rape with her, the appellant is in custody since 16/11/2021 and Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.07.09 17:17:24 IST

according to listing policy, the hearing of this appeal is likely to take a long time,

the application is allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/12/2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

VS

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.07.09 17:17:24 IST