Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6181 of 2022
(MANISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 18-10-2022
Shri Yashpal Singh Sisodia, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent
/ State of Madhya Pradesh.
Heard on IA No.10018/2022, first application under Section 389 (1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence filed on
behalf of appellant - Manish.
T he trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sec 5(M) r/W 6 of
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-with
default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.04.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, District Ujjain (MP) in SC
No.44/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it has been alleged against
the appellant that he took the minor prosecutrix aged about 06 years in his lap
and removed her undergarment and thereafter inserted his finger in her private
part and sexually assaulted her. He further submits that prosecutrix as well has
her mother, both in their cross-examination have denied the incident.
Prosecutrix's mother (PW-1) admitted in her cross-examination that appellant
assaulted the prosecutrix in her absence due to which she got annoyed and
made report against him. Prosecutrix (PW-3) has also stated so even then,
learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/S
5(M) r/W 6 of POCSO Act. 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 admittedly prosecutrix was minor girl aged 06 years.
She in her statement recorded during investigation u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. and also
statement recorded during her examination-in-chief supported the prosecution
case. Thereafter, she was win over . Prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, no case for indulgence is made out in the matter of
grant of bail by way of suspension of sentence.
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant, MLC report of the prosecutrix, statement of the
prosecutrix as well as her mother recorded during trial and also considering the
DNA report, 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.10018/2022 stands disposed of and I.A. No. 11724/2022 an
application for urgent hearing also stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Digitally signed by SEHAR
HASEEN
Date: 2022.10.19 12:16:11
+05'30'
