Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Krishna Tiwari @ Beta Don vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11633 of 2023
(RAM KRISHNA TIWARI @ BETA DON Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 01-12-2023
Shri A. S. Parihar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Aman Patel - Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1-State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.21867/2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 354 and 456 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 1 year, R.I. for 2 years and R.I. for 3 years with fine of
Rs.2,000/-. 3,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of
appellant was suspended by the trial court till 03.10.2023 (as mentioned in the
application). Thereafter, this court vide order dated 15.09.2023 has extended
the period of bail of appellant from 03.10.2023 to 03.12.2023. The maximum jail
sentence of appellant is of three years and he was on bail during trial and did
not misuse the liberty granted to him and also the appeal would take
considerable time to conclude. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall
abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court.
Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be
considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and pray for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and
record of the court below.
This application for suspension of sentence has been argued on the
ground that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, material witnesses have turned
hostile and there is significant contradiction in the statements of prosecutrix and
her sister.
The record reveals that the prosecutrix and her sister were living in a
rented room for the purpose of studies while their family members were living
elsewhere. The incident was witnesses by the prosecutrix and her sister and
they both have corroborated the prosecution story. The father of prosecutrix
P.W.4 has turned hostile but this fact is of no significance as he did not witness
the incident.
The statements of prosecutrix P.W.1 and her sister P.W.2 are
corroborative on the point that the appellant entered the house of prosecutrix
after kicking the door and used criminal force on the prosecutrix. There is some
variation regarding the extent of force used by the appellant upon prosecutrix
and which part of the body of prosecutrix he caught hold of, but use of criminal
force is apparently established through their statements and it is also established
by them that the use of force was with an intention to outrage the modesty of
prosecutrix. The sister of prosecutrix did not disclose the words that were
being used by the appellant but for utterance of these words he has not been
punished.
The delay in lodging the FIR can be understood in the backdrop that
minor prosecutrix and her younger sister were living in a rented room and
reported the matter to the police when their brother arrived. P.W.5 is the
landlord, who has stated on oath that the appellant was living in the
neighbourhood of prosecutrix and out of fright, the prosecutrix and her sister
vacated the rented portion.
Having considered all these facts, the application is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2023.12.04 11:34:42 +05'30'
