Ghanshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8193 MP

1                           Cr.A.No.3527/2022
                      (Ghanshyam Vs. State of M.P.)

Indore : Dated 21.6.2022
      Shri Bharat Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Ms. Geetanjali Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A.No.5452/2022, application for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.

The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000 and under Section 5((f) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo ten years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.3.2022 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Special S.T.No.8/2020.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant and prosecutrix were known to each other and were engaged also. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief admitted that she wanted to marry with the appellant and voluntarily went with him. Learned trial Court while recording her statement during trial has wrongly written her age on 19.11.2018 as 20 years. Prosecution has not produced any material document except scholar register entry Ex.P/21, which is of third standard about age of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix's father has not stated about the fact that on what basis he told her date of birth as

(Ghanshyam Vs. State of M.P.)

22.12.1999 at the time of her admission. Appellant has specifically challenged and asked about the aforesaid facts during cross-examination of In-charge Principal Akhilendra Singh Rathore (PW-9), even then learned trial Court has wrongly mentioned that appellant has not challenged his statement about date of birth of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. Learned trial Court has committed error in holding appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. Appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer. Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record with regard to age of the prosecutrix and also statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), In-charge Principal (PW-9) and considering overall material produced on record and also considering the fact that appellant was enlarged on bail during trial, there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A.No.5452/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with

(Ghanshyam Vs. State of M.P.)

solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 22.8.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

I.A.No.5452/2022 is allowed.

List for hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge Patil

Digitally signed by SHAILESH PATIL Date: 2022.06.22 10:11:13 +05'30'