Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4494 of 2018
(KALU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-05-2023
Shri Nilesh Manore - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Amit Rawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard o n IA No. 6846/2023, which is third application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant No. 1 Kalu
This appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment
d ated 19.4.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua in
S.T.No. 151/2016 whereby the appellant No.1-Kalu has been convicted for the
offence under Sections 342 r/w 34, 363 r/w 34, 366 r/w 34 and 376-D of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, 5 years RI with
fine of Rs. 500/-, 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and life imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 1,000/- with usual default stipulation.
As per the prosecution story, on 26.5.2016 prosecutrix lodged a report
a t police station Jhabua by stating that she is resident of village Chhoti
Kayadawad. On 23.5.2016 near about 8 am she came to Jhabua alongwith her
sister in search of job. Near bus stand Jhabua accused persons Kalu, Sohan
and Mukesh came in two motorcycles and they lifted both of them in
motorcycle and near Rajwade temple, sister has been dropped and three
accused persons forcibly took prosecutrix to Ahmedabad and they committed
rape on her for two days. Thereafter she was left by the accused persons at
Meghnagar Naka by threatening her not to tell anyone about the incident.
Thereafter she came to house on foot and narrated the story to her parents and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time:
5/11/2023 5:43:26 PM
thereafter report was lodged.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits the appellant has been falsely
implicated in this offence. No missing report was lodged for three days. Even
the sister of prosecutrix did not inform about abduction to anyone. In cross-
examination, father of prosecutrix (PW-3) admitted that father lodged the report
in order to get money. It is a case of consent. No DNA test has been
conducted. The appellant is in jail since 2016. This appeal is of the year 2018
and there is no likelihood of its final hearing in near future. Sentence of co-
accused Sohan has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2023
and the case of the present appellant is similar to that of co-accused Sohan. In
such circumstances, counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of jail
sentence of appellant no.1 - Kalu on the ground of parity.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer and
prays for its rejection.
I n view of the above facts and circumstances of the case in totality,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant No.2 Sohan.
Accordingly IA No. 6486/2023 is allowed. It is directed that the jail
sentence of the appellant No.1-Kalu shall remain suspended and he be released
on bail upon his depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited) and also
upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on 29.11.2023 and
on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the concerned trial Court
during the pendency of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Certified copy, as per Rules.
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time:
5/11/2023 5:43:26 PM
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sumathi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time:
5/11/2023 5:43:26 PM
