Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja @ Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.8509/2022
(Raja @ Raju Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 11.10.2022
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri S.S.Thakur, learned Dy.Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.13036/2022, which is an application for
condonation of delay.
The appeal is barred by 113 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the certified
copy of the judgment was misplaced, therefore, the instant appeal
could not be filed within limitation. The delay is not intentional.
Hence, the same may be condoned.
After due consideration I.A.No.13036/2022 is allowed and the
delay is condoned.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.13204/2022, which is first application filed
under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of the
appellant.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 363 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, under
Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years' RI with fine
of Rs.500/-, under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and under Section 11(1)/12 and 16/17 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo three years'
(Raja @ Raju Vs. State of M.P.)
with fine of Rs.500/- and ten years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-
respectively with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Ratlam in S.C.No.100019/2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the statement of the
prosecutrix recorded during investigation under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C.and the statement recorded during trial submits that prosecutrix
was having affair with co-accused Madan and herself went with the
appellant on her own will. Her statements recorded during investigation
and trial are inconsistent on the point of the act alleged to be committed
by the appellant. She in her statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C.has nowhere alleged that appellant tried to outrage her modesty or
tried to commit rape upon her. She was major at the time of incident as
her father himself admitted that she was born after the birth of his elder
son. No offence is made out against the appellant. There is no likelihood
of hearing of appeal in near future. The allegation with regard to rape
wee vague against co-accused Madan, whose sentence has already been
suspended by this Court. The appellant's case is on better footing. 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 for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer
and submits that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident as per
her scholar register. She has supported the prosecution case during trial
(Raja @ Raju Vs. State of M.P.)
and the allegation is serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for
bail.
Having considered the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C.as well as her statement recorded during trial, the
statement of father of the prosecutrix and other material produced on
record with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, in the considered opinion
of this Court the appellant is entitled for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
application 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 his 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 12.12.2022,
and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard,
till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.is allowed.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.10.12
10:34:44 +05'30'
