Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Gawli vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
(DIVISION BENCH; HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
CRA No. 3665 of 2022
(NARENDRA GAWLI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-07-2022
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shone
Sirpurkar for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Record perused.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
List for final hearing in due course.
Also heard on I.A.No.5644/2022, a first application for suspension of
sentence filed on behalf of appellant Narendra Gawli.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.03.2022
passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), district Dhar in SC ATR No.96/2018
whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant under sections 363, 366, 376
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, RI
for ten years with fine of Rs.5000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-
and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with further default
stipulation.
As per prosecution story, father of the prosecutrix lodged a report in the
police station that on 25.04.2018 at 11.00 a.m his son gave an information that
the prosecutrix is missing since 04.00 a.m in the morning. He has reason to
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN HARI KUMAR C G
NAIR
Date: 2022.07.11
18:38:47 IST believe that she has eloped with the present appellant. On the basis of the said
information an F.I.R was registered against the present appellant under section
363 I.P.C. During investigation she was recovered from the possession of the
appellant on 25.04.2018 vide Ex.P/7. The appellant was arrested on
30.04.2018. Both the prosecutrix as well as appellant were medically examined.
After examination of the prosecutrix the doctor could not give any definite
opinion about rape. She was advised for X-ray for ascertaining her age,
however, the police has called her scholar register in which her date of birth was
recorded as 06.06.2003. As per the doctor's advice ossification test was done
and the report was submitted on17.05.2018 along with X-ray and according to
which she was found aged between 16 to 18 years.
The prosecutrix was examined in the Court in which she has admitted
that she went along with the appellant willingly, performed the marriage and
lived with the appellant as husband and wife, however, she has alleged that the
appellant committed rape without her consent. The prosecutrix lived in the
house of the appellant for 3-4 days till she was recovered by the police. After
considering the evidence came on record learned trial Court has found that the
prosecutrix was aged 14 years and ten months at the time of the incident, hence
the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated herein above.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix at thetimeof the
incident. The entry in the scholar register is not supported by any documentary
evidence and her age was recorded on the basis of the oral declaration given by
her parents. The ossification report has not been exhibited in the Court by the
prosecution in which her age was found to be between 16 to 18 years. The
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN HARI KUMAR C G
appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted by
NAIR
Date: 2022.07.11
the Court. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. He has every hope of
18:38:47 IST
success in this appeal, hence prays for suspension of sentence and release of
the appellant on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, the
application is allowed. The jail sentence passed against the appellant shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 19.12.2022 and on such further dates as may be fixed
in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN HARI KUMAR C G
NAIR
Date: 2022.07.11
18:38:47 IST
