Anil @ Anni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14009 MP

                                                                 1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       CRA No. 3935 of 2017
                                               (ANIL @ ANNI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 31-10-2022
                                Shri Vijay Kumar Lakhera, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                Shri    Ajay    Shukla,     learned    Government       Advocate     for   the
                          respondent/State.

I.A. No.17085/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Anil @ Anni is taken up.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 14 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of findings given in para-51 of the impugned judgement, it is clear that the prosecutrix had consented to go with the present appellant. Merely, because she was a juvenile/ minor, the appellant was held guilty. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that juvenility is insignificant once she has given consent. The determination of age of prosecutrix by the Court below is questioned by contending that it is

founded upon Admission Register (Ex. P/1). The Admission Register (Ex.P/1) shows that there is an overwriting and use of whitener on an entry. Thus, the determination of age is highly doubtful. The medical report does not support the case of prosecution. Although, prosecutrix deposed against the appellant in her court statements, omissions and contradictions are important; therefore, he prayed for suspension sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 11/1/2022 10:51:06 AM

prayer.

At the outset, we find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that consent of a juvenile has significant and court below has committed an error in convicting the appellant in view of the consent given by the prosecutrix. Para-13 of the impugned judgment deals with the aspect of overwriting/use of whitener on Ex.P/1. No amount of argument is advanced to create doubt on the said finding. The FSL report supports the case of prosecution. The appellant is a married person whereas the victim was a student of class-IX.

Considering the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, we deem it proper to decline the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

We order accordingly.

I.A. No.17085/2021 is accordingly dismissed.

                                (SUJOY PAUL)                              (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                   JUDGE                                           JUDGE

                          ahd




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/1/2022
10:51:06 AM