Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Prakash Tiwari @ Chandu ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3211 of 2022
(CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI @ CHANDU TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 24-11-2022
Shri Shehnawaz Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manhar Dixit, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
He is also heard on I.A. No.5916/2022, which is first application
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Chandra Prakash
Tiwari arising out of judgment dated 09.03.2022 delivered in Special Sessions
Case No.31/2021 by Special Judge, POCSO Act/IVth Additional Sessions
Judge, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 354 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- and Section
9(M)/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and
fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in custody
since 07.03.2021. The prosecution story shows that on 06.03.2021 a video
footage came into light in which appellant was allegedly committing some
improper act with the prosecutrix while taking her on his lap. It is submitted
that the grandmother of the prosecutrix (P.W.8) did not support the
prosecution story but the whole case of prosecution is founded upon the video
footage which was converted into a compact disc. As per the statement of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
prosecution witnesses, the video was recorded by the mobile of one
Dharmendra, who was not a prosecution witness. There is no certificate as
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2022.11.25 12:28:58 IST
required under Section 65B in relation to the mobile of Dharmendra by which
the said video was allegedly recorded. In absence thereof, the requirement of
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not satisfied and, therefore, whole
conviction based thereupon is like a house of cards. The final hearing of this
appeal will take time, therefore, the remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended.
Shri Manhar Dixit, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the said prayer.
Considering the aforesaid factual aspect and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A.No.5916/2022
is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant-Chandra Prakash Tiwari is hereby
suspended and it is directed that on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum
o f Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only) along with surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he shall be released on bail with a
further direction to remain present before the trial Court,
Chhatarpur on 02nd March, 2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed
by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C.C as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
Nitesh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by NITESH PANDEY
Date: 2022.11.25 12:28:58 IST
