Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surya Pratap @ Shishupal Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10090 of 2022
(SURYA PRATAP @ SHISHUPAL BUNDELA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 25-04-2023
Shri R.S. Patel - Advocate for the appellant No.2 Krishnapal @
Nanheraja.
Shri A. N. Gupta - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri A. Shrivastava - Advocate for objector.
Heard on I.A.No.6639 of 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant No.2
Krishnapal @ Nanheraja arising out of judgment dated 28/10/2022 passed by
Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2020 Tikamgarh District Tikamgarh in Special
Case No.71/2019.
This appellant has been convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and R.I. for 7
years with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively .with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the role allegedly played
by this appellant is similar to the role played by Surya Pratap @ Shishupal
Bundela. This Court was kind enough in suspending the remaining jail sentenced
of Surya Pratap @ Shishupal on 17/03/2023. Considering the principles of
parity, this appellant may be given similar treatment. Reliance is placed on the
statement of prosecutrix (Ex.P/5) recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the
objector opposed the prayer but did not dispute the factum of parity.
This Court on 17/03/2023 recorded as under :-
"As per the prosecution story the main accused in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
4/26/2023 11:54:22 AM
connected Criminal Appeal No. 11183/2022 committed
sexual assault on the victim. As per the story the present
appellant along with the appellant in connected matter took
the victim with them on 9.9.2019. As per the story the
present appellant accompanied the victim till Niwari.
Thereafter victim along with Ranjit Singh Parmar visited
Niwari, Banda, Indore, Babina, Vaishnav Devi and Jammu.
The victim was allegedly sexually assaulted/raped by
Ranjeet Singh. Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that limited allegation against the appellant
is that he accompanied the victim till Niwari. There is no
allegation in the F.I.R that appellant sexually assaulted her.
By taking this Court to the statement of victim recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex. P-5) it is submitted that
victim on her own accompanied the main accused Ranjit
Singh and even solemnized marriage in a temple in Jammu.
Thus, it is a case of consent between appellant in
connected Cr.A Ranjeet Singh and the victim. In any case
Ranjit Singh is main accused and considering the limited
role of this appellant wherein no element of any force was
established against this appellant, appellant may be given
the benefit of suspension of sentence. Moreso when the
age of the vixctim could not be established with necessary
clarity. As per paragraph 27 of the judgment, prosecution
produced material in order to establish the date of birth of
the victim which are three different dates, namely, 1.7.2004,
2.7.2002 and 11.7.2002. In absence of establishing the
date of birth/age with necessary accuracy, the Court below
has erred in determining the age of victim below 18 years.
The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C and in her main Court statement clearly deposed
that the main accused Ranjeet Singh asked her to wait for
two days when she will attain the age of majority, i.e., 18
years. Considering the aforesaid the present appellant may
be given benefit of suspension of sentence. Appellant was
on bail during trial. The final hearing of this matter is not
possible in near future. Hence remaining jail sentence may
be suspended.
Shri Dhande objected the prayer for grant of benefit of
suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the objector placed reliance on certain
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
4/26/2023 11:54:22 AM
paragraphs of judgment wherein the Court below has
mentioned about the Court statement of victim wherein she
deposed that the present appellant threatened her and even
tried to commit sexual assault with her. On specific query
from the Bench, learned counsel for objector fairly
admitted that victim did not lodge any written report before
Police or otherwise about alleged threat by means of a
country made pistol or any incident of rape.
Considering the limited role allegedly played by the
appellant coupled with the fact that main accused is Ranjeet
Singh Parman, without expressing any conclusive opinion
on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No.22843/2022
is allowed."
Considering the aforesaid and by applying the principle of parity, we
deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of this appellant as well.
Accordingly, I.A No.6639 of 2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Krishnapal @ Nanheraja is hereby
suspended and it is directed that this appellant be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court with a further direction to appear before the Trial Court,
Tikamgarh on 09/05/2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the
Trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANJU
Signing time:
4/26/2023 11:54:22 AM
