Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shishupal Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3023 of 2023
(SHISHUPAL JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-07-2023
Shri Rajesh Goswami - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla -Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A. No.10712 of 2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of sole appellant - Shishupal Jatav
seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stands convicted under Section 363 of IPC, Section 366 of
IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years
with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and 20 years'
RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 8/2/2023 passed by Special Judge
(POCSO Act, 2012), Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in Special Case
No.18/2021.
Appellant so far has undergone 2 years and 8 months of jail incarceration
as against sentence awarded.
As per prosecution story, a missing report was filed on 3/12/2020 by the
father of proscutrix that on 2/12/2020, at about 09:30 p.m. after dinner, all
family members had gone to sleep. At about 11:00 p.m., when his wife got up
to respond nature's call, it was found that the prosecutrix was not on her bed.
The complainant suspected that the present appellant has abducted the
prosecutrix and has run away. On aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged,
investigation was completed and challan was filed. The case was committed to
Special Court for trial. The Special Court upon critical evaluation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 7/12/2023
7:04:53 PM
evidence placed on record has convicted and sentenced the sole appellant as
referred above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and
falsely implicated. During the trial, the prosecutrix has turned hostile and also
belied the story of prosecution. Besides, as indicated in Paras 23 & 24 that the
prosecutrix had gone on her own volition and solemnized marriage with present
appellant. Though in Para-11 of the impugned judgment, the Sessions Court has
discussed the evidence led by the prosecution as regards the date of birth of
prosecutrix, her date of birth in school where she had taken admission in Class-
I in 2010 is said to be 5/2/2005, therefore, as on the date of incident i.e.
2/12/2020, she was fifteen and a half years of age, thus, minor; however, learned
counsel for appellant referred to Para-14 of the impugned judgement to contend
that the alleged date of birth is not free from suspicion as the Principal of the
school neither was posted in school at the time of admission nor had recorded
the date of birth. Instead, he had deposed on the basis of record available. The
record itself was vulnerable inasmuch as there was number of cuttings and over-
writings; hence, evidence so led was doubtful. In any case, once prosecutrix
has also turned hostile, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, sole appellant
may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence as he has already
suffered two years and 8 months of jail incarceration and appeal is of the year
2023 therefore, there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near
future.
Per contra, Shri Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, opposes
the application while supporting the judgment impugned with submission that
the prosecutrix was found to be below 18 years of age therefore, irrespective of
Signature Not Verified
her consent and statement recorded, the offence under Sections 363, 366 of
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 7/12/2023
7:04:53 PM
IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act has rightly been found proved
coupled with the positive DNA report. Hence, no exception can be taken in the
matter of grant of benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to present
appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
fro m commenting upon rival contentions touching merits of the matter but
regard being had to the fact that present appellant has already suffered 2 years
and 8 months of jail incarceration, appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no
likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances, present appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.10712/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of sole appellant - Shishupal Jatav shall remain suspended
and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to verification of factum
regarding deposit of fine amount. Appellant is directed to appear before the
Registry of this Court first on 11/09/2023 and on other subsequent dates as
may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, I.A. No.10712/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 7/12/2023
7:04:53 PM
(Dubey)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 7/12/2023
7:04:53 PM
