Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11050 of 2022
(DHEERAJ KOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-01-2023
Shri Kuldeep Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.22587/2022, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant - Dheeraj Kol arising out of judgment dated
29/10/2022 delivered in Special Case No.11/2019 by Special Judge, (POCSO
Act), Umaria, District Umaria.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.500/-,
R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for ten years with fine of
Rs.500/- respectively and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story
on 08/05/2019 at around 11:00 A.M. the victim left her house by saying that she
is going to the agricultural field. Since she did not return back till evening, Gum
Insan Report (Ex.P-10) was recorded. Later on victim was recovered from the
house of appellant on 12/05/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below
erroneously determined the age of victim as 16 years 10 months and 8 days.
The determination of age is based on the Admission Register (Dakhil Kharij
Register). It is submitted that in State of Madhya Pradesh, the Government has
framed statutory Rules namely "M.P. Date of Birth (Entries In The School
Register) Rules, 1973". As per Rule 3 & 4 of the said Rules unless the date of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 06-Jan-23
10:59:36 AM
birth is recorded in the manner prescribed in the aforesaid Rules, date of birth
cannot be accepted. The parents of child are required to give a declaration in a
prescribed form as per the said Rule. When Padamjeet Singh (PW-1) who
brought the Admission Register was cross-examined, he candidly admitted that
the date of birth so recorded in the admission register does not tally with the
aforesaid prescribed form. Thus, determination of age is bad in law.
By taking this Court to the statement of victim (PW-2), Shri Kuldeep
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that its a case of consent. She
travelled in an auto rickshaw with the appellant, but did not raise any alarm. She
informed the doctor that she had relations with the appellant for about four
years. Considering the aforesaid, the Court below has committed an error in
convicting the appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer
on the basis of objection and informs that victim has been served.
We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop coupled with the fact that in a
similar circumstances in Cr.A.No.5518/2022 (Bhagwat Prasad Prajapati Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh) this Court suspended the jail sentence on 16/11/2022,
we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.22587/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant-Dheeraj Kol is hereby suspended and it is
directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further
Signature Not Verified
direction to appear before the trial Court, Umaria on 17/04/2023 and also on
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 06-Jan-23
10:59:36 AM
such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 06-Jan-23
10:59:36 AM
