Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulsan @ Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8928 of 2022
(GULSAN @ LAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 18-12-2023
Ms. Neelam Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prem Narayan Verma - Advocate for the objector.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
IA No. 16798/2023 is not pressed and accordingly dismissed.
Heard on I.A. No.18786/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Gulshan
Yadav @ Lal arising out of judgment dated 26.08.2022 delivered in S.C. No.
215/2021 passed by 18th Additional Session Judge / Special Judge, (POCSO)
Act Bhopal, Distt. Bhopal
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7
years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 366 of IPC sentenced to under go
R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act r/w
Section 376(2)(n) IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.
1,000/- and under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(m) of
IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has
committed an error of law in determining the age of prosecutrix as 17 years
whereas she was major at the time of alleged commission of crime. The
appellant and the victim had solemnized love marriage. It is the case of romantic
relation between appellant and victim. By taking this Court to para-5 of the
statement of I.O. Monika Gaur (PW-12), it is submitted that I.O admitted that
victim informed her that she solemnized marriage with the appellant. The
appellant and victim would like to live together and continue incarceration of
appellant will cause more harm than good. The final hearing of this matter is not
possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended.
Shri A.N. Gupta, learned G.A. opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection.
Shri Prem Narayan Verma, learned counsel for the objector supported
the I.A. and submits that after obtaining instructions from the victim, who is
present in the Court, he is stating that victim has no objection if sentence is
suspended.
Considering the factual backdrop and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence
of appellant - Gulshan Yadav @ Lal.
Accordingly, I.A. No.18786/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of this appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed
that appellant - Gulshan Yadav @ Lal be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
with a further direction to appear before the trial Court Bhopal on
12.02.2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
sarathe
