Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajesh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1851 of 2023
(BRAJESH LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 14-07-2023
Ms. Prachi Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.9325 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant-Brajesh Lodhi.
Appellant stands convicted under Sections 450 of the IPC and 376 (2)
(n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years RI with a
fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively with default stipulation vide
judgment o f conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2022 passed by
Special Judge, POCSO Act and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Distt. Datia
in Special Sessions Trial No.45 of 2019. So far the appellant has undergone jail
sentence for one year as against sentence awarded.
A s per prosecution story, the prosecutrix (PW/1) lodged an FIR on
02.08.2019 that about a month ago while her parents and two younger sister had
gone away to attend marriage. She was in the house with grand mother and
brother. On fateful day at about 12:00 in the night while she was fast asleep, the
appellant alleged to have entered into the house and gagged her mouth. He
threatened her with dire consequences, if she raised alarm. Thereafter she was
brought in adjacent room where she was stripped and subjected to sexual
exploitation. After two or three days, the appellant alleged to have given her
mobile phone with no. 97537-87762 and she had been talking to him from the
said phone. On aforesaid allegations, FIR was registered. Upon completion of
investigation chalan was filed. Case was committed to Sessions Trial. The
Session Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record
convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
Ms. Prachi Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant while taking
exception to the impugned judgement submits that prosecutrix age
determination was found to be doubtful as according to her she was above 18
years of age, though she was said to be 17 years plus. It is a case of consent as
both were known to each other. Though the parents of the prosecutrix have
turned hostile and belied the prosecution story, albeit prosecutrix deposed in
favour of the prosecution case. Appellant is a young person aged about 28
years and is in jail in the company of hardened criminals and if he continues
there, he shall suffer mental distress and physical discomfort. In the facts and
circumstances, she prayed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
P er contra Ms. Gyanani opposes the application while supporting the
impugned judgment with submission that prosecutrix has supported the
prosecution and DNA report is positive, therefore, no case is made out for
suspension of sentence.
We have perused the impugned judgment. Though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the obtaining facts and circumstances coupled with
the fact that the appellant has already undergone jail sentence for one year and
the appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the
appeal, this Court is prima facie of the view that appellant is entitled to the
benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentence of the appellant s hall remain suspended during pendency of the
present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and 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. He is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 13.09.2023 and thereafter, on other
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
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.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2023.07.14
18:04:25 +05'30'
