Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidyashankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6656 of 2022
(VIDYASHANKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-03-2023
Shri U.S.Jaiswal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.N.Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned Government Advocate for the State informed that victim has
been served.
Heard on I.A. No.14547/2022 an application filed under Section 389 (1)
of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant -
Vidyashankar out of judgment dated 05.07.2022 delivered in SCATR.
No.56/2017 by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ IVth Additional Session Judge,
District Mandla (M.P.).
T he appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376(2)
(dh) of IPC to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, Section 6 of
POCSO Act to undergo RI for 20 years and fine of Rs.5000/- and Section 3(2)
(5) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act to undergo RI for life and fine of
Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story,
the mother of prosecutrix lodged a report on 07.12.2013 that her
daughter/victim aged about 17 years is not traceable. During the investigation,
the victim was recovered.
Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court
below has determined the age of prosecutrix as 17 years 04 months and 29
days. The prosecutrix on her own volition went with the appellant in February,
2013. From her native place, she travelled with appellant to Mandla in a bus.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 02-Mar-23
4:01:13 PM
From Mandla she accompanied the appellant to Jabalpur. From Jabalpur she
travelled in a train with appellant to Arjanipur (U.P.). The victim deposed that
appellant solemnized marriage with her. She remained with appellant for about
two and half years. By taking this Court to the exception 2 of Section 375 of
IPC, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that intercourse (if any)
with his own wife who is above 15 years does not fall within the ambit of rape.
It is further submits that determination of age by the Court below is bad in law.
The original record/Admission Register was not produced for the perusal of the
Court. In absence of comparing the photo copy/ true copy with original, the
true copy could not have been relied upon and did not fall within the ambit of
secondary evidence. The appellant remained in custody for some time during
the trial and from date of judgement he is again in custody. The final hearing of
this appeal will take time. Thus, the remaining jail sentence of this appellant may
be suspended.
The prayer is opposed by Shri A.N.Gupta, learned Counsel for the State
on the basis of objection.
We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.14547 of 2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant--Vidyashankar 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 02-Mar-23
4:01:13 PM
further direction to appear before the trial Court, Mandla on 8 th of May,
2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this
regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rule.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 02-Mar-23
4:01:13 PM
