Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.6735/2021
(Sanjay Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 7.5.2022
Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.1923/2022, first application for grant of
suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 366 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and
under Section376(2)(N) of IPC read with Section 5/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo ten years'
RI with fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulation, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2021 passed by Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Barnagar, District Ujjain in Special
S.T.No.74/2020.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant kidnapped/abducted
minor prosecutrix aged about 14 years and committed rape upon her
repeatedly.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has not
produced any other document except scholar register entry with regard to
age of the prosecutrix. Pradhan Sahayak Adhyapak, Shaskiya Prathmik
Vidyalaya, Ordi Chandrashekhar Sharma (PW-4) has admitted in his
cross-examination that there was manipulation in the scholar register
entry with regard to date of birth and he did not know that who
committed the same. He has also submitted that there were no initials,
where the changes have been made. Prosecutrix in her statement
(Sanjay Vs. State of M.P.)
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.has specifically deposed that she
voluntarily went with the appellant. She in her aforesaid statement as
well as the statement recorded during trial has stated that appellant did
not commit any wrong with her. Prosecutrix herself admitted in para 4 of
her cross-examination that her father sold her to a person namely; Dule
Singh for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and she made complaint against her
father about the aforesaid fact. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that appellant has falsely been implicated in the matter on the instance of
prosecutrix's father. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that appellant was enlarged 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 and submits that looking to the nature of allegations the
appellant is not entitled for bail.
Having considered the rival submissions material pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the fact that
appellant was enlarged 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, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
application I.A.No.1923/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the
appellant shall remain suspended.
(Sanjay Vs. State of M.P.)
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
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 4.7.2022, and on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.1923/2022 is allowed.
List in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.05.07
17:23:40 +05'30'
