Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surya Pratap @ Shishupal Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10090 of 2022
(SURYA PRATAP @ SHISHUPAL BUNDELA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-03-2023
Shri R.S. Patel - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Aksansh Shrivastava, Brief Holder of Shri Mahendra Pateria,
Advocate for objector.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
He a r d on I.A.No.22843/2022, which is the f i r s t application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
on behalf of sole appellant Surya Pratap @ Shishupal Bundela.
T h e appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2022 passed by Special
Judge, (POCSO) Act, 2020 Tikamgarh district Tikamgarh in Special Case
(ATR) No.71/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections
363 and 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of
Rs.3,000/- and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with default
stipulation and with a direction that substantive jail sentence shall run
concurrently.
As per the prosecution story the main accused in connected Criminal
Appeal No. 11183/2022 committed sexual assault on the victim. As per the
story the present appellant along with the appellant in connected matter took the
victim with them on 9.9.2019. As per the story the present appellant
accompanied the victim till Niwari. Thereafter victim along with Ranjit Singh
Parmar visited Niwari, Banda, Indore, Babina, Vaishnav Devi and Jammu. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 3/20/2023
10:05:21 AM
victim was allegedly sexually assaulted/raped by Ranjeet Singh. Shri R.S. Patel,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that limited allegation against the
appellant is that he accompanied the victim till Niwari. There is no allegation in
the F.I.R that appellant sexually assaulted her. By taking this Court to the
statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex. P-5) it is submitted
that victim on her own accompanied the main accused Ranjit Singh and even
solemnized marriage in a temple in Jammu. Thus, it is a case of consent
between appellant in connected Cr.A Ranjeet Singh and the victim. In any case
Ranjit Singh is main accused and considering the limited role of this appellant
wherein no element of any force was established against this appellant, appellant
may be given the benefit of suspension of sentence. Moreso when the age of
the vixctim could not be established with necessary clarity. As per paragraph 27
of the judgment, prosecution produced material in order to establish the date of
birth of the victim which are three different dates, namely, 1.7.2004, 2.7.2002
and 11.7.2002. In absence of establishing the date of birth/age with necessary
accuracy, the Court below has erred in determining the age of victim below 18
years. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and in
her main Court statement clearly deposed that the main accused Ranjeet Singh
asked her to wait for two days when she will attain the age of majority, i.e., 18
years. Considering the aforesaid the present appellant may be given benefit of
suspension of sentence. Appellant was on bail during trial. The final hearing of
this matter is not possible in near future. Hence remaining jail sentence may be
suspended.
Shri Dhande objected the prayer for grant of benefit of suspension of
sentence.
Signature Not Verified
Learned counsel for the objector placed reliance on certain paragraphs of
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 3/20/2023
10:05:21 AM
judgment wherein the Court below has mentioned about the Court statement of
victim wherein she deposed that the present appellant threatened her and even
tried to commit sexual assault with her. On specific query from the Bench,
learned counsel for objector fairly admitted that victim did not lodge any written
report before Police or otherwise about alleged threat by means of a country
made pistol or any incident of rape.
Considering the limited role allegedly played by the appellant coupled
with the fact that main accused is Ranjeet Singh Parman, without expressing any
conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail
sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No.22843/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant Surya Pratap @ Shishupal Bundela 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,
Tikamgarh on 09/05/2023 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 rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
vivek
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 3/20/2023
10:05:21 AM
