Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Tawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4806 of 2017
(RAHUL TAWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-04-2023
Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the Appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari, learned G.A. for respondent/State.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State informs that
prosecutrix has been served.
Heard o n I.A. No.5955/2022, which is third application for temporary
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the Appellant - Rahul Tawar.
His first application for temporary suspension was allowed on
23.04.2018 and second application for temporary suspension was rejected on
and 26.04.2019.
The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 376 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Twenty Three and a half years with fine of
Rs. 10,000/- and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for Ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2017 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar (M.P.) in S.C. No. 71/2016.
As per prosecution case, at the time of the incident the prosecutrix (PW-
1) was aged about 7 years. The appellant was tenant of the father of the
prosecutrix and used to live in same house but in a different room. On
28.10.2016 at around 9:00 AM, mother of prosecutrix (PW-2) alongwith her
neighbor (PW-10) was sitting in the house and were talking each other. The
prosecutrix was playing in the house and went towards the appellant's room.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:52:44
The appellant caught hold her and took her in his room and he tried to commit
rape with her and he also tried to penetrate his penis into her vagina.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not
committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. Neighbor
of the prosecutrix (PW-10) has not supported the case of prosecution.
Statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) is also not supported by MLC and FSL
report. The appellant is in custody since 30.04.2016 i.e., at around 7 years.
Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Therefore, it is prayed
that remaining jail sentence may be suspended and the appellant may be released
on bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has objected the
prayer and prayed for rejection of application for suspension of sentence of the
appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
Considering the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2),
coupled with the fact that final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near
future. Therefore, without commenting any opinion on merits, at this stage, we
are inclined to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.5955/2022, is allowed.
I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, Appellant - Rahul Tawar shall be released on bail, on furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 22.08.2023, and on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:52:44
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 28-04-2023
17:52:44
