Asharam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 12573 MP

                                                                         1
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                  CRA No. 4206 of 2021
                                                      (ASHARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                     Dated : 20-09-2022
                                            Mr.Manish Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                            Ms.Smita Kehri, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

None for the respondent No.2.

Considered I.A.No.13061/2021, which is an application under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of appellant-Asharam for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Vide impugned judgment dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Chhindwara in Special Case No.111/2017 the appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 363, 366-A & 376(2-I, N) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03, 05 & 10 years with fine of Rs.500/-, 500/- & 1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The appellant is jail since 01.7.2017 and served substantial sentence. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The

prosecutrix was major and consenting party. The appellant and prosecutrix are now husband and wife. Final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time to conclude. Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the sentence and grant of bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer has strongly oppose the prayer for suspension. Signature Not Verified SAN Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2022.09.22 19:16:41 IST time of incident the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years, which has not

been disputed by the appellant during trial in cross-examination of the parents of the prosecutrix. As per school record the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 16.12.2002 and the date of incident is 21.5.2017. According to medical report she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Though prosecutrix may be consenting party, but in the case of minor girl such a defence has no value.

Taking into account the over all facts of the case, nature of allegations against and considering that merely on the basis of custody period the accused cannot be released on bail, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A.No.13061/2021 stands dismissed.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

RM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2022.09.22 19:16:41 IST