Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 1413 of 2017
(KALARIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-02-2023
Shri Arjun Pathak - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.29809/2021, which is second application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
on behalf of Appellant - Kalariya.
The first application I.A. No.7319/2017, for suspension of sentence was
dismissed on merit vide order dated 07.11.2017.
The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366(A),
342, 506 and 376(D) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 05 years
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. of 07 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, R.I. of 01 year
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. of 01 year and Life Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/- respectively, and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and
sentenced to undergo R.I. of 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.05.2015
passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, District West Nimar in
S.T. No.358/2014.
As per prosecution case, on 14.08.2014, when the prosecutrix was going
to her home from Peepaljhopa, the appellant and co-accused persons came,
caught hold of her, took her to a Jungle and kept her there for 3 days. All the
co-accused persons and the present appellant committed rape with her.
Thereafter, the present appellant took her at his home, at village Dhabla and kept
her there as his wife for 3 days. He again committed rape with her.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 28-02-
2023 10:53:36
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not
committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Age of
prosecutrix mentioned in FIR (Ex. P-3) is 18 years. Therefore, it is clear that at
the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was a major. On 11.05.2018 and
16.12.2015, co-accused persons Nanoo and Eeka, respectively, were granted
bail. Case of present appellant is similar to the aforesaid co-accused persons,
therefore, the present appellant is also entitled to get the benefit of bail on the
ground of similarity. Appellant is in custody since 22.08.2014. Final hearing of
this appeal is not possible in near future therefore, it is prayed that the remaining
jail sentence may be suspended and the appellant may be released on bail.
P e r contra, learned G.A. for the respondent/State opposes the
submission of the appellant and prays for rejection of the application.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
I.A. No.7319/2017, first application for suspension of jail sentence filed
on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by this
Court with an observation:-
"As per statement of prosecutrix (PW-3), the present appellant is the
main accused. It is he, who has promised the prosecutrix to marry with her
and later on, refused to marry, and therefore, she left the village.
On due consideration of the aforesaid, the present appellant is not
having any parity with Eeka s/o Nanla Barela and other accused persons."
Earlier application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed
by the present appellant is dismissed, no change in circumstances is shown by
the appellant, therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant suspension of
Signature Not Verified
jail sentence to the appellant and accordingly, I.A.No.29809/2021 is rejected.
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 28-02-
2023 10:53:36
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shruti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 28-02-
2023 10:53:36
