Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil @ Nantiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2147 of 2022
(SUNIL @ NANTIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-07-2023
Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Varsha Thakur - GA for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.15641 of 2022, which is an application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant No.1-Sunil @ Nantiya for grant of
bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366, 376(2)
(n), 376(D) and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I. with fine of
Rs.1000/-, 20 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, 20 years R.I. with fine of
Rs.1000/- and 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with usual
default stipulation.
As per the prosecution story, co-accused Prakash and Kamal along with
appellant Sunil abducted the prosecutrix and went to Haat Pipaliya, Dewas,
Prosecutrix further deposed that appellant Sunil has committed sexual assault
against her wishes repeatedly and somehow she managed to escape from his
custody and thereafter, lodged the report. The FIR was registered against the
three accused persons. During the investigation, she was found below the age
of 18 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not
proved age of the prosecutrix by adducing concrete evidence. Date of birth
recorded in the scholar register is also doubtful. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-
7) has stated that he got recorded the date of birth of the prosecutrix without
any document like birth certificate or hospital record. Bhuraji (PW-3) has also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 17-Jul-23
5:56:33 PM
stated that date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded on the basis of the date
disclosed by her father. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
CRA No.11320/2022 (Jitendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P.) decided on 13.1.2023,
wherein in the similar facts and circumstances benefit of doubt has been given
to the accused. Appellant is in jail since last 5 years. Final conclusion of appeal
will take considerable long time. Hence he prays for grant of bail and
suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Per contra, learned GA for the respondent/State opposes the application
for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for both the parties, nature and gravity of the allegation
against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that appellant is suffering
jail incarceration since last 5 years, there is no concrete proof regarding age of
the prosecutrix, at the time of incident appellant was aged about 19 years, he
has no criminal record and that final conclusion of this appeal will take a long
sufficient time, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the
appellant.
Accordingly, IA No.15641 of 2022 is allowed and the execution of
remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.1-Sunil @ Nantiya is hereby
suspended till the final disposal of this appeal and it is ordered that the appellant
be released on bail on his depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited,
and upon furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with a further
direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 18.10.2023 and on such
other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard during
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 17-Jul-23
5:56:33 PM
the pendency of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
trilok
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 17-Jul-23
5:56:33 PM
