Bablu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15519 MP

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT INDORE
                             CRA No. 7039 of 2022
                  (BABLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 24-11-2022
       Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

       Shri Kamal Kumar          Tiwari,   learned   Govt. Advocate   for   the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Record perused.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

List for final hearing in due course.

Also heard on I.A.No.11116/2022, first application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Bablu.

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.08.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Case No.SC ATR/73/2018 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant under sections 366 IPC, 3/4 of the POCSO Act & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v)(a) & 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- 1

year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with further default stipulation.

As per prosecution story, on 24.03.2018 when the parents were not at home the prosecutrix eloped with the appellant. An F.I.R was lodged which was recorded under section 363 IPC. During investigation she was recovered on 06.07.2018 and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded. She was medically examined. The documents pertaining to caste and date of birth

were recovered. After investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under sections 366 IPC, 3/4 of the POCSO Act & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v)

(a) & 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and vide judgment dated 10.08.2022 the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that except the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of commission of offence, rest of the evidence collected by the prosecution is in favour of the appellant. There was no abduction or forceful marriage as the photographs and affidavit of marriage were produced and exhibited as Ex.D/1 & D/2. So far the age is concerned, although the

scholar register has been produced but no supporting document has been filed in support of the date of birth recorded as 01.01.2001. The father of the prosecutrix has shown ignorance about the date of birth recorded in the Aadhar as well as vaccination card. As per the Headmaster, the date of birth was recorded on the basis of the vaccination card produced by the parents but the same has not been exhibited in trial. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the affidavit the prosecutrix herself has disclosed her age as 19 years, therefore, he performed the marriage and he was not aware about her date of birth recorded in the scholar register as she was not carrying any document pertaining to her date of birth, however, the Aadhar card of the prosecutrix is available on record in which her date of birth is recorded as 01.01.1999. The offence has not been committed knowingly that she was minor when she went along with him for performing marriage. The appellant has no criminal record. He was also in his tender age at the time of marriage. The appellant was on bail during trial and he was granted bail by this Court under section 439 of the Cr.P.C, hence prays for suspension of sentence of the appellant.

Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed. The jail sentence passed against the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24.04.2023 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

C.c as per rules.

      (VIVEK RUSIA)                            (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
          JUDGE                                         JUDGE

hk/


        Digitally signed by HARI
        KUMAR C G NAIR
        Date: 2022.11.25 14:15:31
        +05'30'