Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5701 of 2022
(RAKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 23-01-2023
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Ms. Nivedita Sharma, learned counsel for the Objector.
Heard on I.A. No.9303/2022, which is first application for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of
appellant- Rakesh.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 25.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO
Act, District- Ujjain in S.S.T. No.15/2021 as under:-
Imprisonment in
Section and Act Imprisonment Fine (if deposited)
lieu of Fine
366 of IPC
(included 363 of 5 years R.I. Rs.1,000/- R.I. for 1 month
IPC)
5L/6 of POCSO
Act
20 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 5 months
(included 376(2)(N)
of IPC)
5L/6 of POCSO
Act R.I. for 5 months
20 years R.I. Rs.2,000/-
(included 376(3) of
IPC)
5L/6 of POCSO
20 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- R.I. for 5 months
Act
A s per prosecution case, on 12.12.2019 at about 5 p.m. appellant on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 24-01-2023
17:29:13
pretext of marry the victim took her to Ratlam by train thereafter, he took the
victim to Baswada where the appellant kept the victim as his wife. Due to
physical relation the victim got pregnant thereafter, she gave birth to a child. On
28.01.2021 police has recovered the victim from the possession of the
appellant. At the time of incidence the victim was aged about 16 years and 10
months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that victim (P.W.-1) in
paragraph-4 admitted that she is aged about 22-22 years and her date of birth
year is 2000. The victim and other witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution. The trial Court has not assessed the age of the prosecutrix
properly. The victim is living with the appellant as his wife till date. The
appellant was in custody since 28.01.2021 to 30.06.2021 thereafter, he is in
custody from the date of judgment. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible
in near future therefore, it is prayed that remaining jail sentence of the appellant
may be suspended and the appellant may be released on bail.
Per Contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed
the prayer of the appellant by submitting that though victim and other witnesses
have not supported the case of the prosecution but DNA report supports the
case of the prosecution. The trial Court has rightly assessed the age of the
victim therefore, application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
may be rejected.
Learned counsel for the Objector has not opposed the prayer for
suspension of jail sentence.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Signing time: 24-01-2023
17:29:13
evidence available on record against the appellant, the application I.A.
No.9303/2022 is allowed and the 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 02.03.2023, 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: 24-01-2023
17:29:13
