Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2841 of 2021
(VIJAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-06-2023
Shri Amit Dubey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
This appeal is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 6662/2021- an application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to
appellant - Vijay arising out of judgment dated 16.03.2021 delivered in
Special Case No.24/2017 by Special Judge (POCSO Act) District Burhanpur.
T h e appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 366 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Section
376(2)(n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment with fine
of Rs. 10,000/- and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story,
the victim eloped with the appellant on 17.04.2017 and therefore, a report was
lodged in concerned police station on 18.04.2017. Appellant brought her back
and reported in the police station on 17.05.2017. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that in the meantime, victim remained with appellant. They
traveled in a bus and reached Khandwa. From Kandwa, they traveled to
Barwani and from there, they reached Rajkot. They started working as laborer
at Rajkot. It is urged that during this period, they traveled from one place to
another place, the victim had sufficient opportunities to raise alarm and seek
help of the public. She on her own volition eloped with appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Court
determined the age of the victim erroneously. Heavy reliance is placed on
admission register Ex. P-8. However, the mother of victim (PW-3), in her
deposition in para 7 categorically stated that the parents did not inform the date
of birth/age to the staff of the school and staff of the school recorded the date
of birth as per their own assessment/wims. Thus, there is no basis on the
strength of which age of victim was determined. More so when mother of the
victim deposed that at the time of incident the victim could have been of more
than 18 of the age. It is submitted that appellant remained in custody about two
and half years. The final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future,
thus, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
The prayer is opposed by learned State counsel.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, aforesaid IA is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant -Vijay is hereby suspended and it is
directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a
further direction to appear before the concerning trial court Burhanpur on
04.09.2023 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
L.R.
Digitally signed by LALIT
SINGH RANA
Date: 2023.06.28 11:08:45
+05'30'
