Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dariyavsingh @ Daru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2031 of 2022
(DARIYAVSINGH @ DARU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-10-2022
Shri L. Shunondo Chandiramani, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent
/ State of Madhya Pradesh.
Heard on IA No.5670/2022, first application under Section 389 (1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of
appellant - Dariyavsingh alias Daru.
T h e trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 363, 366,
376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec 5(L) r/W 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo 07 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 10 year RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-
, 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further 20 years RI with fine of Rs.
1,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.02.2022 passed by Special Judge (PCOSO) Act, District
Jhabua (MP) in SST No.83/2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was a
consenting party which is also apparent from her deposition as PW-1 as she in
her cross-examination has clearly stated that appellant had taken her on the
pretext of marrying her.
Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to her
statement recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-4)in which she had clearly given a
clean chit to the appellant. He further submits that age of the prosecutrix is also
disputed as even according to the radiological test report, her age is stated to be
in between 16-18 years and she has also admitted in para 19 of her deposition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/18/2022
11:40:58 AM
that she had mentioned her age to be 19 years when the affidavit (Ex. D-1) was
prepared for marrying the appellant. It is submitted that appellant is lodged in
jail since 16.02.2022 and earlier he was already released on bail during the
course of trial and has not misused the liberty so granted. 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 submitted that offences alleged against the appellant are of very
serious in nature, therefore, he may not be released on bail.
Having considered the rival submissions and perusal of the record, this
Court finds force with the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant
and further taking note of the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard at an
early date, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application
is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, appellant 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 28.11.2022, and on such other dates, as may be
fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A. No.5670/2022 stands disposed of and I.A. No. 8980/2022 an
application for urgent hearing also stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/18/2022
11:40:58 AM
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/18/2022
11:40:58 AM
