Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 65 of 2023
(VIJAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-05-2023
Ms. Pritha Ghoshal - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Prashant Jain Gwaliory - Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.50 of 2023, which is first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on
behalf of appellant Vijay.
Appellant has been convicted under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) and 342 of
IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, 10
years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-
respectively with usual default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is an innocent
person and has been falsely implicated in this matter. Appellant remained in
custody for about 86 days and rest of the period appellant was on bail and he
has not misused the liberty granted to him. Prosecutrix is a major and divorcee
lady. During the period of 10 days, she remained in company of the appellant
and did not raise any alarm. MLC report is not positive regarding the
commission of rape. Looking to old pendency of the cases for consideration,
final conclusion of this appeal would take sufficient long time. There is a strong
case in favour of the appellant. Hence, the execution of the remaining part of the
jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 02-05-2023
10:46:50
application for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegation levelled against the appellant and also taking note of the fact that
prosecutrix (PW-1) is a 22 years old major, married and even divorcee lady; she
herself admits in Para 6 of her cross-examination that earlier she married to one
Sanjay and thereafter, she got divorce from him; there is material contradiction
regarding the vehicle used in the said incident and place of the incident also;
prosecutrix herself admits in her cross-examination that she travelled with the
present appellant to different places and remained with appellant for more than 4
days and during the aforesaid period she did not raise any alarm; MLC and FSL
reports are also not positive regarding the commission of rape; appellant is in
custody since 14.10.2022 i.e. the date of judgment and final conclusion of the
appeal will also take sufficient long time. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, I find it is to be a fit case to suspend the remaining
custodial sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.50 of 2023 is allowed and it is directed subject to
deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and subject to furnishing
personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
learned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
20/10/2023 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf, the
execution of remaining custodial part of the sentence of the appellant shall
remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
Registry is directed to list the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 02-05-2023
10:46:50
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 02-05-2023
10:46:50
