Narsi Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13410 MP

                                                                  1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                         CRA No. 6160 of 2022
                                               (NARSI PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 17-08-2023
                                Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                Dr. Anjali Gaynani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State.

Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:-

Heard on IA.No. 13862 of 2022, first application u/Sec. 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant

Narsi Prajapati.

Vid e judgment dated 03-06-2022 passed by Special Judge (POSCO Act), Dabra, District Gwalior in Special Sessions Case No. 01 of 2021, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 363-A, 376(2)(j), 376(3) of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- seven years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-, ten years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with default stipulations. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

As per prosecution case, on 06-10-2020 father of victim- prosecutrix

lodged an oral report at police station Bilaua to the effect that on 05-10-2020 at around 10:00 in the night he along with his whole family had gone to sleep after taking dinner. At around 05:00 in the morning his wife woke up. When he got up, he saw that the main door was open, he got suspicious and then his wife told him that let us go inside and thereafter, they saw that his other children were sleeping but victim prosecutrix aged abut 12 years was found missing. Thereafter, he suspects that present appellant Narsi Prajapati might has taken his minor girl victim with him by alluring her. On the basis of such information, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 8/18/2023 11:17:59 AM

Crime No.172 of 2020 was registered under Section 363 of IPC. Matter was enquired and during enquiry, statements of witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested. Victim was recovered by police force from the clutches of accused. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed against appellant for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(j), 376(3) of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced appellant for offences as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned trial Court has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The victim-

prosecutrix has nowhere stated in her evidence that she was kept by appellant in unlawful confinement, therefore, offence under Section 366 of IPC is not made out. Although the prosecutrix victim is below 18 years of age but she has made her contradictory statement under Section 161 of CrPC. The prosecution in order to determination of her age did not produce either date of birth certificate or school admission register on record. As per opinion of doctor PW6 Memuna Khatoon, victim- prosecutrix was fully developed girl. There are major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW1 Jagdish Chauhan & PW4 Kailash Chauhan denied about alleged incident of causing fire by the appellant. PW10 Basant Kumar who is the injured witness has been declared hostile. It is further contended that the appellant remained in custody from 07-10-2020 till 03-06-2022 during trial and from the date of passing of impugned judgment, he is in custody that means he has already served near about two years 10 months of jail incarceration. This appeal is of the year 2022 and its final outcome will take some time. Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 8/18/2023 11:17:59 AM

Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting upon merits of the case, aforesaid IA deserves to be and is hereby allowed and it is directed that jail sentence of appellant will remain under suspension subject to verification that amount of fine has been deposited, on appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court for appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 18th December, 2023 and on such further dates as may be fixed by the office in this regard till disposal of the appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                            (ROHIT ARYA)                                  (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                               JUDGE                                               JUDGE

                          MKB




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/18/2023
11:17:59 AM