Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6462 of 2021
(RAKESH DHURVE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-03-2023
Shri P.K. Naveria - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
I.A. No.5021 of 2022 an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail t o appellant Rakesh Dhurve
arising out of judgment dated 28.09.2021 delivered in Special S.T. No.17/2018,
by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balaghat (M.P.) is taken up for consideration.
T he appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.50/-, Section 366 of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.50/-, Section
366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.50/-,
Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.50/- and Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for
10 years with fine of Rs. 50/- with default stipulations.
As per prosecution story, the complainant lodged a report on 13.05.2018
in Police Station Birsa, Distt. Balaghat that his younger daughter, student of
High School is missing from 11.05.2018. It is submitted that victim was
recovered from the possession of appellant at Mumbai.
Shri Naveria, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the
prosecutrix was determined by the Court below as 17 years, 9 months and 10
days. The determination of age is erroneous because the school register was
produced and parents of victim unequivocally disposed that they did not inform
the concern clerk /officer about the date of birth of victim, indeed it was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 3/3/2023
4:23:28 PM
recorded by the officer / clerk on his own. Thus, determination of age by the
Court below is erroneous. Victim went with the appellant on her own volition.
She remained at Mumbai for about one month. During her travel to Mumbai and
stay therein, she had sufficient opportunity to seek help and raised alarm. But
she did not undertake any such activity. This itself shows that she was
consenting party. In absence of clinching proof of age, by no stretch of
imagination the victim could have been treated as a minor. The final hearing of
this matter will take time. The para-48 of the impugned judgment shows that the
appellant remained in custody for 3 years, 3 months and 10 days till the date of
impugned judgment dated 28.09.2021 and thereafter again he is in custody.
Thus, the remaining jail sentence be suspended.
Shri S. K. Kashyap, Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the
basis of objection.
We have heard the parties on this aspect.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and witho ut expressing
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No.5021 of 2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant - Rakesh Dhurve 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 trial Court, Baihar, Distt.
Balaghat on 9th 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.
Signature Not Verified
Certified copy as per rules.
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 3/3/2023
4:23:28 PM
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 3/3/2023
4:23:28 PM
