Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Jatav 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. 10006 of 2022
(ARJUN JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-12-2023
Shri B.K. Sharma-Advocate for appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard o n IA No.22358 of 2023, second application under Section
389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant. His earlier application (IA. No.1163 of 2023) was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 02.05.2023.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 366 read with Section 120B and
under Section 376(2)(Dha) read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for 12 years with a
fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act,
2012), Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Case No.71 of 2019.
Appellant so far has already undergone jail sentence of one year and four
months.
As per prosecution story, prosecutrix on 15.06.2019 made the report to
the effect that on 12.06.2019 at about 8 in the evening, she had gone to the shop
of Vallabh Thakur to fetch smoking stick (Beedi). Since shop was closed and
she was returning home, at that time, three boys came on a motorcycle. Out of
them, one was Jitendra Jatav to whom she was knowing and who by enticing
her got her sit on the motorcycle and covered her face. Jitendra asked Arjun to
move the vehicle speedily. Then Jitendra asked Sooraj to make a call and thus
she could know the names of rest two. Thereafter, they got her to the field of
Bhatnawar, committed rape on her thrice by Jitendra and then threatened for
dire consequences if the incident is disclosed to anybody. Thereafter, Jitendra
asked next day morning at about 8 to Sooraj and Arjun to bring the motorcycle.
After their arrival, all the three got her, left at Tomar Builder's Plant near Bairad
and went away therefrom. On such report, FIR was lodged by Police Station
Goverdhan at Crime No.42 of 2019 under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 363,
341, 506, 34 IPC and under Section 5I/6 of the POCSO Act and investigation
commenced. After completion of investigation, including recording of
statements and collection of evidence, challan was filed. The Special Court
upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record convicted and
sentenced the present appellant as referred above.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the Special Court
has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that prosecutrix
(PW-2) and her parents (PW-1) and (PW-3) have turned hostile and did not
support the story of prosecution. It is further submitted that the appeal being of
the year 2022 is not likely to be decided early in the near future. On these
grounds, learned counsel submits that the present appellant may be extended
the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions touching merits of the case,
however, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, the present appellant is
entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.22358 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed
that the jail sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended during
pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to
verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and 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. He is
directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 12.02.2024 and
thereafter, on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
pd
