Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1104 of 2023
(PRAMOD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-04-2023
Shri Anand Gupta- Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.3016 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant-Pramod.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 366A, 376(3) IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and twenty
years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was further convicted under Section 3/4 of
POCSO Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years
with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and LI with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.01.2023 by VI Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO)
Act/Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act,
Bhind (M.P.) in SCATR No.183/2020.
As per prosecution story, on 30.10.2019, complainant- grandfather of the
prosecutrix (PW-2), in his residential house, was sleeping along with family
members including prosecutrix. In the morning at about 03:00 when prosecutrix
(PW-7) could not be found at home, she was searched nearby and in relation
but there were no traces about her and it could be revealed that an unknown
person had got her to somewhere by extending enticement. On the basis of
suspicion grandfather (of the prosecutrix) (PW-2) lodged an FIR at Police
Station Gormi, District Bhind which was registered at Crime No.334/2019.
Missing persons' report was also registered on the same day at No.25/2019.
During the course of investigation, prosecutrix was recovered on 07.11.2019
vide memo Ex.P-4. She was medically examined and her statements were
recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,
challan was filed. The Sessions Court on critical evaluation of the evidence
placed on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. In fact, the appellant and the prosecutrix were
known to each other. The prosecutrix had gone on her own volition with the
appellant. The impugned judgment suffers from conjectures and surmises.
Relevant material has not been looked into by the learned Trial Court. It is
further submitted that the prosecutrix (PW-7) did not support the story of
prosecution and she has been declared hostile. The appellant has suffered
incarceration for two and a half years. The appeal is not likely to be decided in
the near future. On these grounds, learned counsel for appellant submits that the
appellant may also be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment submits that
prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. She was manipulated by the
appellant and was sexually abused by him, hence no exception can be taken in
the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of bail, regard being had to the
nature and the gravity of offence found proved against the appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of
the case, but regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has
undergone incarceration for two and a half years, prosecutrix (PW-7) did not
support the story of prosecution and she has been declared hostile, and the
appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view that
appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant-Pramod shall remain suspended during pendency of the
present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 30/06/2023 and on other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant-Pramod, his medical examination be conducted through
the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any
symptom of COVID-19, then the consequential follow up action
or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If not,
appellant-Pramod shall be released on bail in terms of the
conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
DHARK
Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=5da1b3ce5c6aee672b1f51a5cff56
61c113046ab7ebb8031c36dcac4472c040a,
pseudonym=22FE9CB9F7CF0345E7FFAC90
31E38DF6A29B4C10,
AR
serialNumber=C72B9531562BC6028F5D6E4
2E82477C85878470B30E4A7672CCA523E83
C0BCB9, cn=PAWAN DHARKAR
Date: 2023.04.27 19:33:49 +05'30'
