Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babu @ Babulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.3679/2019
(Babu @ Babulal Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 30.3.2022
Ms. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.4605/2021, second application for grant of
suspension of sentence.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 366 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-
and under Section 5L/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 31.1.2019 passed by Special Judge (Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act), Ratlam, District Ratlam in
Special ST No.63/2014.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant kidnapped/abducted
minor prosecutrix aged about 17 years and committed rape with her
repeatedly.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant's first
application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.8.2019.
Appellant is in custody since 30.1.2019 and has suffered three years
and three months out of total sentence awarded to him. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that prosecutrix was major at
the time of incident. Prosecution has not produced any document
except certificate (Ex.P/6) issued by Pradhanadhyapak, Shaskiya
(Babu @ Babulal Vs. State of M.P.)
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Morda, District Ratlam with regard to age of
the prosecutrix. Pradhanadhyapak (PW-4) of the aforesaid school has
specifically stated that prosecutrix's date of birth was written on the
basis of earlier school leaving certificate issued by
Ex.Pradhanadhyapak, but the same has not been produced on record.
Prosecutrix's mother (PW-2) has stated that prosecutrix's date of birth
was written on assumption. Prosecutrix was consenting party and
learned trial Court has committed error in holding appellant guilty.
The 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 appearing for the respondent/State has opposed
the prayer.
Considering the rival submissions, material pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellant with regard to age of the prosecutrix,
period of custody and there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in
near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter
I.A.No.4605/2021 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
(Babu @ Babulal Vs. State of M.P.)
Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of trial Court, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court
firstly on 13.06.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the
Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.4605/2021 is allowed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.03.31
10:07:16 +05'30'
