Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 8618 of 2019
(MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-07-2023
Shri Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
(1) Heard on I.A.No.9160/2023, which is third application filed under
Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant-Mukesh. His first
application was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2020. Second application was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.10.2021.
(2) The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 29.08.2019
passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, Ratlam, in Special Case No.13/2017 and sentenced him as
under:-
Imprisonment
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine in lieu of fine
amount
5/6 of POCSO
12 Years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 6 months R.I.
Act
366 IPC 3 Years R.I. Rs.1,000/- 3 months R.I.
(3) As per prosecution story, on 01.01.2017 father of the prosecutrix
lodged a complaint at Police Station that her minor daughter is missing and the
present appellant was also missing from the village and he has doubt that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 7/12/2023
10:16:12 AM
appellant took her daughter with him. The police lodged the complaint and after
investigation found the prosecutrix. Accordingly, FIR has been registered
against the appellant for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC
and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and the trial Court convicted the appellant
for offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 366 of IPC.
(4) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is in jail for
more than four and a half years and trial Court failed to appreciate the material
contradiction and omissions in the evidence of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix is
15-16 years of age and she has falsely implicated the appellant in the present
crime. The appellant never took the prosecutrix with him and had not gone to
Ahmedabad and was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is
further submitted that the trial Court has misread the evidence and wrongly
drawn inference with regard to the prosecution evidence and erred in convicting
the appellant. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence
of PW-1 Ravina in paragraph 9, 14 and 17. and para-4 of the evidence of PW-2
Kedarnath, maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. Final hearing of this appeal is not
possible in near future. Hence, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.
(5) Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the
prayer for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.
(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
(7) Considering the evidence of the prosecutrix and her parents, the
maternal uncle (mama) of the prosecutrix, it is found that at the time of the
incident the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and she in her evidence has
Signature Not Verified
supported the prosecution story and in view of the material available on record
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 7/12/2023
10:16:12 AM
against the appellant, we find that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly I.A.No.9160/2023 stands rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 7/12/2023
10:16:12 AM
