Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithun vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4548 of 2018
(MITHUN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 29-06-2022
Ms Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Shashwat Seth, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Heard on I.A.No.3125/2022, which is an application filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C, for suspension of jail sentence moved on behalf of the
appellant - Mithun.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
u/s 5(j)(ii)r/W 6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Sec 450
of IPC sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and
further sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 100/-, with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2017
passed in ST No. 48/2017.
Prosecution story in brief is that while prosecutrix was alone at home,
appellant came to her house and committed rape upon her .
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was major at
the time of incident and she voluntarily made relations with the appellant. As per
prevailing custom in their community, appellant could not paid the amount of
compensation to the father of prosecutrix due to which, false and fabricated
report was lodged against him, that too after delay of about 07 months of the
incident. Prosecutrix(PW-1) in para 4 of her cross examination and her father
Signature Not Verified
SAN Raoji (PW2) in para 4 of his cross-examination admitted the aforesaid fact that
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.06.30 11:33:30 IST as appellant fled away from panchayat and matter with regard to payment of
compensation was not resolved, they lodged report against him. Hence, learned
trial Court has committed an error in holding the appellant guilty for the
offences punishable u/S & 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 450 of IPC.
Even otherwise, appellant is in custody since 11.02.2017 and has already
suffered about 5 years and 04 months of custody out of total sentence of 10
years awarded which is more than 50% of the total sentence.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 Panel Lawyer 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. 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
including statement of prosecutrix (PW-1)and her father (PW-2) , and also
looking to the period of custody already 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.3125/2022 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
of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) along with a solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Registry of this Court firstly on 14.09.2022 and on such other dates, as may
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.06.30 11:33:30 IST
be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List in due course.
C.c. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.06.30 11:33:30 IST
