Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Chaurasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7250 of 2022
(RAHUL CHAURASIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-02-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri B.P.S.Chouhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 17301 of 2022, which is first application filed on
behalf of the appellant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant is in custody for almost two years and four months.
Vid e judgment dated 13/08/2022 passed by III Additional Sessions
Judge designated as Special Judge (under the POCSO Act, 2012), Vidisha in
Special Case No.155 of 2020, the appellant stands convicted for the offences
punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced to
respectively undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, R.I. for 4 years
with fine of Rs.2000/- and R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.3000/- with
corresponding default stipulations with the direction that the custodial sentences
shall run concurrently.
Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 26.09.2020 a report was
lodged by the complainant with the Police Station Dehat that he has two sons
and two daughters and his younger daughter is the prosecutrix. On 25.09.2020
at about 10.00 her younger daughter aged about 17 years and 6 months went to
school but she did not return till 26.09.2020. She was searched nearby and with
the relatives but was not found. He has apprehension that some Rahul
Chourasia has enticed his daughter away. Upon such report, offence was
registered at Crime No.522/2020 at Police Station Dehat for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO
Act. 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 prosecutrix
in her ocular evidence has stated to have gone with the appellant on her own
volition as she knew him. The Court below has convicted the appellant and
sentenced him on surmises and conjectures. The relevant piece of evidence has
not been considered, particularly that of prosecutrix deposition. The appeal is
of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal. 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 with the submission
that the DNA report is positive, however, he does not dispute about the
statement of the prosecutrix as marshaled by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
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
10.04.2023 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
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.02.07
11:26:09 +05'30'
