Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 5973 of 2017
(RAMBALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 18-08-2023
Shri M.S.Rawat, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.8284 of 2023, which is third repeat application
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of sole appellant
Rambali seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The earlier
applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 22/11/2018
and 5/4/2021.
The appellant stands convicted under Section 376(2)("Ja")("Da") of
IPC & S.6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
ten years with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year; under
section 363 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- in
default to suffer RI for 1 year; under section 366 of the IPC to undergo
R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for 1 year and
under section 506 Part II of IPC to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of
Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for 1 year, vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.11.2017 passed by Special Judge (under the
POCSO Act, 2012), Morena in Special Case No. 69/2014, with the
direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 17/6/2014, at about 4
PM, appellant enticed the prosecutrix away on his Motorcycle towards
Ambah on false promise of marriage and thereafter kept her in a room till
28/6/2014 as his wife and subjected her to sexual intercourse on various
occasions. When prosecutrix insisted for marriage, he dropped her at
Morena on 28/6/2014 while threatening that he would put her and her
brothers to death in case she revealed the incident to anyone.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been falsely implicated. In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the impugned
judgment, the learned trial Court has found the age of the prosecutrix to be
between 17 to 18 years. In fact, it is a case of consent. The prosecutrix
has stayed with the appellant from 17/6/2014 to 28/6/2014 on her own
accord and the report of the incident was lodged, as late as, on 26/8/2014.
Even from the prosecution version itself, it is apparent that the prosecutrix
had accompanied the appellant as she was inclined to marry him. The
appellant so far has suffered incarceration of about 5 years and 9 months
(without remission) and about 6 years and 2 months (with remission).
This appeal is of the year 2017 and its final disposal is likely to take time.
With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for suspension of sentence is
made.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application
while supporting the impugned judgment.
Up o n hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court
refrains from commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the
matter, regard being had to the overall facts and circumstances of the case
including the borderline age of the prosecutrix and that present appellant
has suffered incarceration of more than 5 years as aforesaid and final
disposal of this appeal is likely to take time, we are of the view that the
appellant deserves to be given the benefit of suspension of sentence.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentences of appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on
bail, 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, for his appearance before the Registry of
this Court first on 10/10/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be
fixed by the Office in this behalf.
It is made clear that observations on facts, if any, are only for the
purpose of disposal of the application for suspension of sentence and
shall have no hearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
2023.08.18
17:56:41
+05'30'
