Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Pippal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12269 of 2022
(SURESH PIPPAL Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 15-05-2023
Shri Vikram Jatav- Advocate for the appellant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for State.
Heard on I.A. No.7838 of 2023, first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. for grant of suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant.
Appellant stood convicted under Sections 376 (2) (jha) and 506 (2) of
IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 376(2) (jha) and R.I. for three year
under Section 506 (2) with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 13.12.2022 passed by Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (for brevity "POCSO") Dabra,
District Gwalior (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.07/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Trial Court erred in
convicting the appellant and awarding jail sentence. The Age of prosecutrix
apparently was 12 years at the time of alleged incident. It is a submission of
learned counsel for the appellant that earlier on 20th of March, 2018 an
application was given by the appellant to the police station Suklahari Thana
Girjora, District Gwalior about the verbal altercation between appellant and
family of complainant on grazing of cattles. Therefore, apprehension was raised
regarding counterblast from the complainant side. He further referred the
tendency of complainant side whereby earlier one Naval Singh was alleged with
similar set of allegations and trial was held wherein complainant side did not
support the prosecution story and declared hostile. Therefore, according to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 16-May-23
11:51:40 AM
appellant this is the practice adopted by the complainant side time and again to
harass people. He already suffered six months of incarceration and hearing of
appeal shall take some time. He moved an application under Section 391 of
Cr.P.C also to take letter dated 20th of March, 2018 as referred above on
record for consideration.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the State.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court intends
to allow the application with stringent conditions, subject to deposit of fine
amount, it is directed that jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended
subject to appellant furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before Registry of this Court on
subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.
Appellant shall not move in the vicinity of the complainant side in
any manner and would not cause any embarrassment or harassment to
the complainant side, otherwise his benefit of suspension shall
immediately be withdrawn.
I.A.No.7838/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
Chandni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 16-May-23
11:51:40 AM
