Beermaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2953 MP

                                                                 1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                        CRA No. 11262 of 2022
                                                 (BEERMARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 17-02-2023
                                 Ms. Dixita Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Shri   Kamal        Kumar     Tiwari,   learned       Govt.Advocate     for   the
                           respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.15592/2022, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf

of appellant-Beermaram.

The trial Court has convicted the appellant vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2022 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, District-Dhar in SC ATR No.04/2022 as under:-

                                    Conviction                                             Imprisonment in
                                                       Punishment           Fine
                                  Section and Act                                            lieu of fine


                                    363 of IPC          5 years RI         Rs.500/-         Addl. 1 year RI


                                    366 of IPC          7 years RI         Rs.500/-         Addl. 1 year RI


                                  5L/6 of POCSO
                                                        20 years RI       Rs.1,000/-       Addl. 2 years RI
                                     Act, 2012


                                 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
                                                     Life Imprisonment     Rs.500/-         Addl. 1 year RI
                                     Act,1989

As per prosecution case, at the time of incident prosecutrix was aged about 17 years. The prosecutrix is a member of Scheduled Tribe caste and the appellant is other than SC/ST caste. The prosecutrix and appellant knew each other prior the incident. The appellant used to tell her that he loves her and wants to marry but the prosecutrix refused. Thereafter, parents of prosecutrix Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 20-02-2023 15:15:52

wanted to marry her with some other person but she did not want to marry any other person. She wanted to marry the appellant. Thereafter, the prosecutrix on 05.08.2021 went to Indore and other places with the appellant. Both of them also went to Court to marry but their marriage could not solemnized due to her minor age thereafter, the prosecutrix returned home. On 15.11.2021, police recovered the prosecutrix from Sarpanch- Pawan Soni. The statement of prosecutrix under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. In both the statements the prosecutrix has stated that appellant has not done any wrong with her. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not

committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. The age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years at the time of incident but the trial court has not considered properly the statement of prosecutrix and her parents and wrongly relied on her age mentioned in the scholar register and marksheet. The prosecutrix went with the appellant voluntarily. Though the prosecutrix has supported the case of prosecution in her deposition but the aforesaid statement is in contradiction from her earlier statement recorded under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. therefore, her statement is not reliable. It is also submitted that statement of prosecutrix is not supported from medical evidence as well as FSL report therefore, it is prayed that remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has objected the prayer of the appellant and prays for its rejection.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 20-02-2023 15:15:52

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, also considering the evidences available against the appellant coupled with the fact that final hearing of the appeal is not possible in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A.No.15592/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.

I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 27.03.2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.

                                  (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                      (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                                           JUDGE                                      JUDGE
                           ajit




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 20-02-2023
15:15:52