Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3909 of 2022
(GOPAL SONI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-02-2023
Shri A.R.Shivhare, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 1004 of 2023, which is third application filed on behalf
of the appellant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence
and grant of bail. The earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide
orders dated 21/6/2022 and 17/10/2022 respectively.
Vide judgment dated 13/04/2022 passed by II ASJ designated as Special
Judge (under the POCSO Act, 2012), Datia in Special Case No.12/2020, the
appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under sections 342, 323
and 354 of the IPC and sentenced to respectively undergo R.I. for 3 months
with fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for 5
years with fine of Rs.5000/- with corresponding default stipulations. He also
stands convicted for the offence under section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.5000/- in default to
suffer R.I. for 1 year, with the direction that thee custodial sentences shall run
concurrently.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 10/3/2020 at about 12
noon, when prosecutrix had gone to buy snacks at appellant's shop, he dragged
her inside the shop by catching hold of her left hand and closed the shutter
from inside and tried to outrage her modesty, He also slapped her. The
prosecutrix came outside after opening the shutter, while the appellant
threatened to kill her in case she revealed the incident to her mother. Upon such
report, offence was registered at Crime No.33/20 at Police Station Pandokhar,
District Datia for the offences punishable under sections 323, 354 and 506 of
the IPC and section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned trial Court, after
critical evaluation of the evidence on record, has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The testimony
of prosecution witnesses including that of prosecutrix is fraught with material
contradictions and omissions. The FIR was lodged after three days with no
explanation forthcoming for such delay. There is no credible evidence on
record to prove outraging of modesty by the appellant. Besides, out of five
year's sentence, appellant has already suffered one year in custody. He was on
bail during trial and has not misused the liberty so granted. With the aforesaid
submissions, prayer for suspension of custodial sentence is made.
P e r contra, while supporting the impugned judgment, learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting on rival contentions touching the merits of the case, yet
taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case
including that this appeal is of the year 2022 and its final disposal is likely to
take time, is of the view that the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of
suspension of custodial sentences. Thus, the application deserves to be
allowed.
Consequently, the I.A. is hereby allowed. It is directed that the jail
sentences of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail
subject to depositing the amount of fine (if not already deposited) and on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac
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
05.04.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with
following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned Jail Authorities are directed that before releasing the
appellant, the medical examination of appellant be conducted through the jail
doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is having any symptoms of COVID-
19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be
undertaken immediately. If not, appellant shall be released on bail in terms of the
conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of
bail.
It is made clear that the observations made on facts shall have no bearing
on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA)
JUDGE
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
2023.02.04
11:29:17
+05'30'
