Narayan Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9049 MP

                                    1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                               CRA No. 8167 of 2022
           (NARAYAN KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 19-06-2023
      Shri Prakhar Naveriya - Advocate for the appellant.

      Shri Anil Patel - Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1-State.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal being arguable is admitted.

Also heard on I.A No.17380/2022, which is first application under

Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

T h e appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.500/- , section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years RI with a fine of Rs.500/- and section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/-,with default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant

has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offences. The appellant is in jail since 8.1.2019. He further submits that there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the judgment of the court below.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and her age was not proved to be below 18 years. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was only 14 years of age at the time of incident. The parents of prosecutrix though could not verify the date of birth of prosecutrix during their court testimony but the school record and the oral evidence supporting the same are available. Merely because the name of mother of prosecutrix was corrected in that record after using whitener, it cannot be said that a strong case for suspension of sentence is made out. The

name of prosecutrix, her father and her date of birth do not show any correction in the school record.

In view of the aforesaid, the application is dismissed. List the case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.06.20 16:54:53 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.23