Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhu Barman Urf Guddu Barman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.12183 of 2022
(SHAMBHU BARMAN URF GUDDU BARMAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 17-03-2023
Shri A.K. Vishwakarma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard on I.A.No.24373 of 2022, which is the first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant Shambhu Barman @ Guddu Barman.
The appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2022 passed by
Special Judge, "Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012/Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act/11th Additional Sessions Judge", Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.)
in Case SCATR No.276/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted
under Sections 363 read with Section 3 (2)(Va), Sec. 366-A, 376(2)(k)
(n) of the IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 5(l) read with Section
6 of the "Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012" and
sentenced under Section 376(2)(k)(n) of the IPC read with Section 3(2)
(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and
under Section Sec. 366-A read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act R.I. for life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the date of
incident, prosecutrix was a major girl. As per School record, the age of
the prosecutrix was 17 years, 11 months and 9 days on the date of
incident and submits that as per ossification report the age of prosecutrix
is determined as 19 years. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
prosecutrix was the consenting party in the case and since she was major
on the date of incident, therefore, no offense regarding sexual assault
can be made out. In that respect, learned counsel for the appellant drew
the attention of this Court towards the statement of prosecutrix (PW-2).
He also submits that father of prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in para-8 of
the impugned judgment that at the time of admission of the prosecutrix,
he had told the age of prosecutrix by guess to the teacher and
prosecution has not filed the admission form which was filed at the time
of admission of the prosecutrix in the School. Therefore, it is not proved
by the prosecution that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was
juvenile and seems to be a consenting party.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the
trial Court is based upon conjunctures and surmises and prosecution has
not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him and
appellant has no criminal antecedent and this is an appeal of the year
2022 and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal in near
future, hence, prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant
of bail to appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and submits that trial Court has passed the judgment after proper
appreciation of evidence that came on record and has rightly held the
appellant guilty, hence, prays for rejection of application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and pe-
rused the record.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing
any conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the re-
maining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. 24373 of 2022 is
allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant Shambhu Barman @ Guddu Bar-
man 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.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty 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, Jabalpur on 08th 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 rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH
2023.03.20 16:10:37 +05'30'
