Sachin Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7302 MP

                                                             1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 6625 of 2022
                                  (SACHIN YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 04-05-2023
                                Ms. Shrishti Kashyap - Advocate for the appellant No.1- Sachin Yadav.

                                Shri Ajay Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

I.A. No.6528 of 2023, application for suspension of sentence and grant o f bail to the appellant No.3- Sachin Yadav arising out of judgment dated 16.07.2022 delivered in Special SCATR No. 42/2019 by 4th Additional

Sessions Judge (Special Judge POCSO Act), Narsinghpur, Distt. Narsinghpur is taken up.

T h e appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 376 (DA) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.14,000/- and under Section 6 r/w 5(g) of POCSO Act with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the threshold, submits that this Court was kind enough in suspending the remaining jail sentence of other co-

accused persons. Heavy reliance is placed on the order dated 05.11.2022 whereby this Court suspended the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.3- Sachin Kashyap. Ms. Shrishti Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that this appellant is claiming parity with appellant No.3. The case of the prosecution as against appellant No.1 is similar qua their case against appellant No.3. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of this appellant may be suspended.

Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:08:14 PM

basis of objection but on a specific query from the Bench did not dispute that parity exist and fairly stated that case of appellant No.1 is similar to appellant No.3.

This Court in order dated 05.01.2023 recorded as under:-

"By taking this Court to the prosecution, learned counsel for this appellant submits that on 18.02.2019, the father of prosecutrix lodged a "Gum Inshan" report in Police Station-Stationganj, Narsinghpur that his daughter went to the school to write an examination but did not return from the school. The Police started its investigation. On 19.02.2019, the victim was found at railway station Narsinghpur.

Ms. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant submits that her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded (Ex. -D-3). In the said statement, she did not depose anything against the present appellant. The same is the case regarding her another statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex. P-1). A conjoint reading of these statements show that she requested her parents to send her to Bhopal for study but, they did not agree to the said proposition. Thus, out of anger, she on her own went to Bhopal where she was received by father of her friend. The father of her friend advised her to go back and therefore, after spending a night at Bhopal, she came back t o Narsinghpur on her own. The Court's statement of victim is relied upon where she categorically deposed that her previous statement recorded on 20th February, 2019 (Ex-P-1) is a correct statement. A combined reading of statement (Ex. D-3), Ex.-P-1 and Court's statement clearly shows that there is no iota of material/evidence in this statement on the strength of which, appellant can be held guilty. In addition, the FSL report is not in favour of the prosecution. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution story. No internal or external injuries were found on the body of the victim. Considering the aforesaid, it is submitted that without there being any legal evidence, the Court below held the appellant as guilty for committing offence under Section 376 (DA) of IPC, which is bad in law. The final hearing of this appeal is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:08:14 PM

possible in near future, resultantly the jail sentence of appellant may be suspended.

Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned G.A. for the State opposed the prayer and informed that the victim has been served and he relied on his objection.

We have heard the parties on this aspect.

Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of this appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 14760 / 2022 is allowed."

Considering the aforesaid and by applying principles of parity, we deem it proper to grant similar benefits. Accordingly, the remaining jail sentence of this appellant No.1 is hereby suspended. I.A. No. 6528 of 2023 is hereby allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.1-Sachin Yadav 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, Narsinghpur on 12th 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)                                 (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                                JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                          sarathe




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 5/4/2023
5:08:14 PM