Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6388 MP
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 277 of 2023
(RAJENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 20-04-2023
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the Objector.
Heard on I.A. No.183/2023, which is first application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant- Rajendra.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No.61/2020 as under:-
Conviction Imprisonment in
Imprisonment Fine
Section/ Act lieu of fine
363 of the IPC 1 year R.I. Rs.500/- 1 month R.I.
366 of the IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.500/- 1 month R.I.
5(L)/6 of
20 years R.I. Rs.1,000/- 2 month R.I.
POCSO Act
5(J)(II)/6 of
20 years R.I. Rs.l,000/- 2 month R.I.
POCSO Act
As per prosecution case, at the time of incident prosecutrix (P.W.-1) was aged about 17 years. The appellant is neighbor of the prosecutrix therefore they knew each other before the incident. On 24.02.2020 appellant told the prosecutrix that he will marry her and took her to Shajapur, Ujjain and other places and repeatedly committed intercourse with her without her consent.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 21-04-2023 17:24:06
committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the case. The trial Court has wrongly assessed the age of the prosecutrix. At the time of incident she was aged more than 18 years. The appellant and the prosecutrix had married together and the prosecutrix is living in his home. One child was born by their wed lock. She was a consenting party to go with him. The appellant was in custody since 18.09.2020 to 8.12.2020 and thereafter he is in custody since the date of judgment i.e. 01.12.2012. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the Objector has filed I.A. No.5331/2023 pleading no objection in granted bail to the appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A. No.183/2023 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, appellant-Rajendra 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 17.07.2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A. No.5331/2023 also stands closed.
List for final hearing in due course.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 21-04-2023 17:24:06
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ajit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 21-04-2023
17:24:06
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!