Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul @ Tingu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2709 of 2021
(RAHUL @ TINGU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-11-2023
Ms. Sharmila Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas - Government Advocate for State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No. 15422/2023, second application filed u/s. 389 of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant Rahul @ Tingu.
The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 23.2.2021 passed
b y Special Judge (POCSO Act)/6th Additional Sessions Judge Ujjain under
Sections 363, 366, 376(d) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 7 years
RI, 7 years RI and 20 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, 1,000/- and 5000/-
with default stipulation.
As per the prosecution story FIR was lodged by father of prosecutrix on
11.9.2018 that he did not find prosecutrix in the house. Thereafter search was
made. An offence under section 363 IPC was registered against unknown
person. During investigation, prosecutrix was recovered and she was medically
examined vide Ex.P-2. On the basis of the statement of prosecutrix, appellant
Rahul and co-appellant Ajay were arrested. Investigation has revealed that co-
appellant Ajay committed rape upon prosecutrix and appellant Rahul was
outside the room.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as age of
prosecutrix is concerned, the original scholar register prepared at the time of
admission was not recovered by police and the scholar register of class-2 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-11-2023
11:06:58
prosecutrix was recovered in which there is an overwriting in respect of the date
of birth of prosecutrix. No document has been produced about date of birth of
prosecutrix at the time of admission, therefore, finding in respect of age has
wrongly been given, otherwise they were in affair. The appellant is in jail for last
5 years. He has no criminal antecedent. The appeal is of the year 2021 and there
is no likelihood of its final hearing in near future. She, therefore, prays for
suspension of jail sentence and release him on bail.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer and
prays for rejection of the application.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting anything on the merits of
the case, the application for suspension of sentence (I.A. No. 15422/2023) is
allowed and it stands closed. It is directed that subject to deposit of the fine
amount, if not already deposited with the trial Court and on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court, the execution of remaining
custodial part of sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended, till final
disposal of this appeal. The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his
presence before the Registry of this Court on 25.1.2024 and on all such
subsequent dates, which are fixed in this behalf.
IA No. 15423/2023 an application for early hearing stands disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-11-2023
11:06:58
