Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Para vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1803 of 2023
(NARESH PARA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-05-2023
Shri Ayush Saxena, Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.4813 of 2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant-Naresh Para.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act, and
sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2022
by Special Judge (POCSO) Act/Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in
SC No.61/2021.
As per prosecution story, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW/1) lodged a
missing report on 11.05.2021 at Police Station Kotwali Morena that on 8.5.2021
at about 12:30 in the afternoon while she went away to attend the marriage
function in the neighbour's house, she has left behind the prosecutrix aged
about 15 years and two sons. However, after half an hour when she returned
back, the prosecutrix was found missing. Her children were ignorant about her
movement. She was suspected that accused Naresh Para has manipulated her
and eloped with her. The prosecutrix was recovered on 15.05.2021. Thereafter,
she was sent for medical examination and DNA samples were taken for
chemical examination. Upon collection of the evidence, final report was filed.
The case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment for the above
mentioned offences.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia submits that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix neither has
supported the prosecution story in her statement under Sections 161 or 164 of
Cr.P.C. or for that matter in ocular evidence. As such, the conviction is only
based on surmises and conjunctures. Therefore, prays for suspension of
sentence.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, fairly submits that prosecutrix has turned hostile.
Nevertheless, her age was assessed to be 15 years and 4 months and DNA
report supports the story of prosecution, therefore, no exception can be taken
in the matter of suspension of sentence.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting upon the rival contentions so advanced touching the merits of
the case but regard being had to the fact that the prosecutrix neither has
supported the prosecution story in her statement under Sections 161 or 164 of
Cr.P.C. or for that matter in ocular evidence, therefore, in the obtaining facts
and circumstances, the appellant is held entitled for suspension of sentence,
thus the application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and it is directed that the jail
sentence of appellant-Naresh Para shall remain suspended during pendency of
the present appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to verification of the
factum of depositing the fine amount and on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He is directed to appear
before the Registry of this Court first on 04/07/2023 and on other subsequent
dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
(i) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing
appellant-Naresh Para, his medical examination be conducted
through the jail doctor and if it is prima facie found that he is
having any symptom of COVID-19, then the consequential follow
up action or any further test required be undertaken immediately. If
not, appellant-Naresh shall be released on bail in terms of the
conditions imposed in this order;
(ii) in case of violation of conditions, State is free to apply for
cancellation of bail.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2023.05.01
16:59:54 -07'00'
