Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poona vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.7014/2022
(Puna Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 12.10.2022
Ms. Sangita Parsai, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Raj Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.11074/2022, 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 450 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under
Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years' RI with fine
of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 506 Part II of IPC and sentenced to
undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation,
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.7.2022
passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ratlam in S.C.No.84/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has
failed to prove the fact that prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the
time of incident and trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under POCSO Act. She further submits that it is apparent
from the statement of the prosecutrix that she was consenting party. This
fact also finds support from the FIR, which is delayed by 11-12 days
without any reasonable cause. FSL report and DNA report both do not
support the prosecution case. Learned trial Court has committed error in
(Puna Vs. State of M.P.)
holding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. Appellant has
suffered about three years two months actual incarceration out of ten
years' sentence awarded 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 for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer
and submits that prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case.
She has explained the reasons for not disclosing about the incident to her
parents. Offences alleged against the appellant are of serious in nature,
therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, findings recorded by the
learned trial Court about age of the prosecutrix, her statement recorded
during trial, MLC report and also considering the period of custody of
the appellant, but 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.
(Puna Vs. State of M.P.)
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: 2022.10.13
10:03:18 +05'30'
