Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 3036 of 2019
(MUKESH AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-06-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A.K.Nirankari - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 1793/2020, which is first application filed on behalf of
appellant No.1 - Mukesh Ahirwar under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C seeking
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant No.1-Mukesh Ahirwar stands convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to 12 years RI
with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 20.03.2019 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 19/2018.
As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged at about 5 in the evening on
29.01.2018 by complainant Anil Tiwari at Police Station Nateran, District
Vidisha with the narration of the incident that he is the resident of village Ravan.
At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon while he was going on motorcycle with his
agricultural friend Bhagchand Ahirwar towards his field near water canal, he
heard noise of screaming and beat from a distant place. He went towards the
said direction and stopped near a hutment to ascertain about screaming. It was
found that appellant Mukesh S/o Suresh was engaged in unnatural sexual
offence with his nephew who was minor and mentally retarded. Accordingly,
FIR was registered and upon completion of investigation, challan was filed and
the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court upon
critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has
convicted the appellant as aforesaid and sentenced accordingly.
Shri Goswami, learned counsel for appellant submits that it is a case of
false implication. In fact, there is a rivalry between the appellant and that of
complainant Mukesh as both of them have dispute over agricultural land
situated adjacent to each other. In the past the appellant was also assaulted by
complainant Mukesh, to which though complaint submitted but not registered
by the concerned police station. On the contrary, on false accusation the instant
FIR was lodged. Learned counsel refers to the statement of the victim (PW3)
recorded in the Court to bolster his submissions. That apart, even otherwise the
appellant has already undergone five years three months jail sentence. Hence,
prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, Shri Nirankari learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State opposes the application supporting the impugned judgment.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the
case, regard being had to the period of incarceration as against the sentence so
awarded, the appellant is held entitled for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
Accordingly, we allow I.A.No. 1793/2020 and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant No.1-Mukesh Ahirwar shall remain suspended during
pendency of present appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Fifty
Thousand 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 on
9/8/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.As. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2023.06.20
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00' 18:07:41
+05'30'
