Suresh Baretha @ Rajveer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13897 MP

                                    1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                            CRA No. 9517 of 2023
             (SURESH BARETHA @ RAJVEER Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 24-08-2023
      Shri Arun Sharma- Advocate for appellant.

      Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal:-

Heard on IA.No. 13984 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1) of CrPC moved on behalf of appellant Suresh Baretha alias Rajveer for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Vide judgment dated 09th of June, 2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bhind in Sessions Trial No.176 of 2021, the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo twenty years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- and he has further een convicted under Section 376(2) (n) of IPC by incorporating Section 6 of POCSO Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution story, on 10-03-2019, prosecutrix was sleeping in her room. On the next day at around 05:00 in the morning, when the mother of prosecutrix saw that her daughter prosecutrtix was not in the room,

she informed her husband over the phone about absence of prosecutrix at home. Parents of prosecutrix searched for prosecutrix in the vicinity and relatives, but prosecutrix could not found anywhere. Father of prosecutrix gave an information at Police Station Pawai on suspect that present appellant- accused Suresh had taken his daughter prosecutrix with him by means of allurement. On the basis of which, Crime No.18 of 2019 was registered at Police Station Pawai. During investigation, prosecutrix was recovered from

Etwah Chungi, Bhind and her statement was recorded by police in which she stated that on 10-03-2019 at around 06:00 in the evening she went on foot from her house to Pithanpura square without informing her parents and thereafter, she came to Bhind by means of a lift from where she went to Gwalior by a bus. Then, she reached the Railway Station and sat in the train where she met a boy who told his name as Rajveer. Rajveer arranged a house to her to stay whereby she started liking Rajveer and on 07-04-2019 both of them got married in the temple and started living as husband and wife. It is further alleged by prosecutrix that she does not know at what place they stayed in Delhi on rent. On 20-01-2020 a child namely Aryan was born to her. Police during

investigation also recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, prima facie offence was found proved against appellant and accordingly, charge sheet was filed before the competent Court from where case was committed to Special Court for its trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the present appellant for offence as mentioned above.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was acquitted of charges of Sections 363, 366, 366-A of IPC but has been wrongly convicted by trial Court vide impugned judgment. Prosecutrix had left her house according to her own volition and got married with Rajveer. Appellant has not committed any offence alleged against him. Medical evidence and DNA report has completely demolished the prosecution case. Since the proecutrix was major on the date of alleged incident therefore, the benefit regarding her age and consent should be given to present appellant. On the basis of hyper technical view, the trial Court has convicted the present appellant which is bad in law. Appellant was on bail during trial and he did not missue the liberty so

granted to him. It is further contended that during trial, the appellant remained in custody from 11-08-2021 to 29-09-2021 i.e. near about one month 18 days and from the date of passing of impugned judgment, he is in custody and he has already been served near about three and half months of incarceration. The appeal is of 2023 and its final outcome will take some time. Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed 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 present appellant will remain under suspension subject to verification that amount of fine has been deposited, on his furnishing a 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 21st of 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

           Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK
           DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
           PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH


MAHEND
           COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
           GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
           Pradesh,
           2.5.4.20=8c6d4d6122d7ee987e457a3bec592



RA BARIK
           2cacbc050c998981397a35d9758a2b55074,
           pseudonym=61167CBF346371FDA4919D07
           819090142FCCA056,
           serialNumber=AB90F893988F10D718DA01F
           8065D87F25DDC9B6C8C3FF0E5E280DD36D
           476F6BA, cn=MAHENDRA BARIK
           Date: 2023.08.25 13:08:05 +05'30'