Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Batham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 13015 of 2023
(RAJU BATHAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-12-2023
Shri Arvind Chauhan - Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 19017 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr. P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Raju Batham seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 344 IPC, 366 of IPC and u/s.
5 (L) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI with
a fine of Rs.5,00/-, five years RI, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 20 years RI with
a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 04.10.2023 passed by XIth Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Distt. Gwalior in Case No. SC/98/2020.
Appellant so far has undergone jail incarceration of about seven months.
A s per prosecution story, a missing report was lodged on 13.05.2020
with allegation that corpus was missing since 04.05.2020. She was recovered on
30.05.2020. Her statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 30.05.2020 and
statement u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C on 01.06.2020. Upon registration of the FIR
statements of the witnesses were recorded. After collection of incriminating
material challan was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for
trial. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on
record and examination of witnesses has convicted and sentenced the present
appellant as aforesaid.
Shri Chauhan while taking exception to the impugned judgment interalia
submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The
Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix in her statement
recorded u/s. 161 had made altogether different story than what was alleged in
the FIR in as much as she has stated that because of beating and hostile
behaviour of the parents, she had left the house without informing any person
and has been living at different places on her own volition. She did not
complaint of any incident much less as alleged in the FIR. However, after her
recovery her statement u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she made a
concocted story of alleged offence with allegation that on gun point the
appellant committed the crime. The photographs on record do suggest that the
appellant and the prosecutrix were known to each other. Appeal is of the year
2023 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future.
Under such circumstances, prayer is made for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the present appellant.
Per contra, Ms. Gyanani, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the
impugned judgment submits that the FSL and DNA reports are positive.
Therefore, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case and
that the present appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal, appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence.
Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant Raju
Batham shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail, subject to
verification of amount of fine being deposited and on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only)
with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 12-02-
2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office in this
behalf.
Accordingly, IA No. 19017 of 2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
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) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
