Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay @ Ajju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 5375 of 2022
(AJAY @ AJJU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-11-2023
Shri Lucky Bijoliya - Advocate on behalf of Shri Vijay Kumar Nagpal -
Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas - Government Advocate for State.
Heard on IA No. 2033/2023 which is an applicatio for condonatin of
delay. There is a delay of 12 days in filing this appeal.
For the reasons assigned in the application, IA No. 2033/2023 is allowed
and delay of 12 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No. 2032/2023, an application filed u/s. 389 of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of appellant Ajay @ Ajju.
The appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 23.2.2021 passed
by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/6th Additional Sessions Judge Ujjain under
Sections 363, 366, 376(d), 506 Part II of IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo 7 years RI, 7 years RI, 20 years RI and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.
1,000/-, 1,000/-, 5000/- and 1,000/- 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, appellants
Ajay and Rahul were arrested. Investigation has revealed that appellant Ajay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-11-2023
11:06:58
committed rape upon prosecutrix and co-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
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. He, 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. 2032/2023)) 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.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-11-2023
11:06:58
JUDGE JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 03-11-2023
11:06:58
