Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 March, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 1699 of 2021
(DEEPAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 08-03-2022
Ms Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms Seema Maheshwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A.No.13414/2021, which is an application filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C, for suspension of jail sentence moved on behalf of the appellant
- Deepak.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366
& 376(2)(i) of IPC and further convicted u/s 3/4 Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of
Rs.2,000/-, RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of
Rs. 3,000 with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 02.02.2021 passed in S.C.104/2019.
Prosecution story in brief is that appellant kidnapped/abducted minor
prosecutrix aged about 15-16 years and after wrongfully confining her, committed
rape upon her repeatedly.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was major at the
time of incident and she has voluntarily went with the appellant and lived with him.
It is further submitted that statement of prosecutrix recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C.
and statement recorded before the trial Court are contradictory. Admittedly,
prosecutrix was recovered after about six months from the incident and she lived
with the appellant during the said period. Prosecution has not proved the fact that
prosecutrix was minor and below 18 years of age at the time of incident. Father of
the prosecutrix - Mannalal (PW-2) admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination
that he was not aware about the date of birth of the prosecutrix and has not
produced birth certificate at the time of her admission in the school and the
Signature Not Verified
SAN Principal himself has written date of birth of prosecutrix on presumption. Dr.
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.03.09 10:35:52 IST Rashmi Vivek(PW-17) found her secondary sexual character fully developed
during her medical examination. Even otherwise, appellant has already suffered
about 3 1/2 years of custody out of total sentence of 10 years awarded.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 and grant of the bail to the appellant.
Having considered the statement of Mannalal - father (PW-2) of the
prosecutrix, Dr. Rashmi Vivek - Medical officer (PW-17) , other material produced
on record and also looking to the period of custody already suffered by the
appellant i.e. 3 1/2 years, 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.13414/2021 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 Registry
of this Court firstly on 11.04.2022 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 SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2022.03.09 10:35:52 IST
