Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohsin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8998 of 2022
(MOHSIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-05-2023
Shri Prakash Upadhyay - Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.K. Kashyap- Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A No. 18964 of 2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant-Mohsin
arising out of judgment dated 27.09.2022 delivered in S.C. No.74/2021 by
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chhindwara District-Chhindwara (M.P).
The appellant has been convicted under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section
376(2)( n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-
and under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo RI for life
and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no reliable
evidence for conviction of the accused under the above mentioned sections. He
has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 2 to 7 of the evidence
of prosecutrix (PW-1) and argued that the prosecutrix is a consenting party.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also disputed the age of the prosecutrix.
As per the prosecution story, the first incident took place on 14-02-2015 and
the prosecutrix travelled with the appellant to various places on her on volition
and FIR report Ex. P/1 was lodged on 30-11-2017, almost after two years and
nine months. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that in
the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court in paragraph-22 has held that at
the time the prosecutrix conceived in the year 2016, she was of the age of 17
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 5/3/2023
2:59:14 PM
years 7 months and 6 days. As per the counsel, during trial, the accused was in
custody for about 90 days and after conviction also on 27-09-2022 the accused
is in jail. The final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, the
remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended.
Learned Govt. Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of objection.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact
that there is no possibility of appeal being heard finally in near future, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend
the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A No. 18964 of 2022
is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant - Mohsin 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, Chhindwara on 17th July, 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) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 5/3/2023
2:59:14 PM
