Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roop Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7654 of 2021
(ROOP SINGH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-01-2023
Shri Dinesh Upadhyay - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.
Shri Sumit Kanojiya - Advocate for the objector.
I.A. No.19833/ 2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant- Roop Singh Yadav arising out of judgment dated
27.11.2021 delivered in S.C. No. 04/2020 by Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh is taken up.
T h e appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and under Section 5 /6 of POCSO Act sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of prosecutrix
was wrongly determined by the Court as 17 years and 2 months The finding of
date of birth is drawn on the basis of admission register produced by
Ravishankar Ahirwar (PW-8). In para 11 of the impugned judgment, the court
below has given an erroneous finding that in relevant entry No. 827 which
relates to the admission of victim, there is no overwriting or use of the whitener
whereas cross-examination of PW-8 makes it clear that the entry No. 827 was
tempered by use of whitener and thereafter name of victim was overwritten.
Thus, finding founded on this entry is perverse. In addition, it is argued that
appellant and victim have solemnized marriage and victim is residing with the
family members of appellant. The continuance of appellant in custody will cause
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 1/6/2023
5:34:13 PM
more harm than good. The final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near
future, thus the remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended.
Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned G.A. opposed the prayer.
Shri Sumit Kanojiya, who appeared with the complainant submits that
complainant has solemnized marriage with the appellant and she is presently
residing with the family of appellant. Complainant has no objection if sentence
is suspended.
Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of
the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the
appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 19833/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant- Roop Singh Yadav 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 direction to appear before the trial Court,
Jatara, Tikamgarh on 10th May, 2023 and also on 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) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 1/6/2023
5:34:13 PM
