Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Pachvadya Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1912 of 2019
(RAJU PACHVADYA MEENA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 08-11-2023
Shri Deependra Raghuwanshi-Advocate for the appellants.
Shri A.K. Nirankari-Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard o n IA No.15925 of 2023, second repeat application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of appellant No.1-Raju Pachvadya Meena. The first application (I.A.
No.135/2023) was dismissed as withdraw on 11/05/2023.
Appellant No.1 stands convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced
to suffer 03 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 366 IPC and
sentenced to suffer 05 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 376-
"Gha" and sentenced to suffer 20 years' R.I. with default stipulations vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2019 passed by
Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Special
Sessions Trial No.65 of 2016.
Appellant No.1-Raju Pachvadya Meena so far has undergone more than
seven years of jail incarceration.
As per prosecution story, a written complaint (Ex.P/2) was lodged on
30.06.2016 by the prosecutrix with her father (PW/3), mother (PW/2), brother
and maternal Uncle that while she had gone to respond nature's call a day
before in the night at about 7, the present appellant Raju and co-accused Vijay
intercepted and asked her to accompany them on a motorcycle parked in
standby area. She was taken to Raghaogarh in hutment (Kutir) where present
appellant Raju committed forcible intercourse with her while the co-accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
1:17:03 PM
Vijay went outside. The prosecutrix was kept overnight in the said hutment. In
the morning, the accused persons again took her on a motorcycle. On the way,
the co-accused Vijay had got down near a hotel. Thereafter, present appellant
Raju had taken her on a motorcycle to a distant place and left her there
wherefrom she came back to her house weeping and told the entire story to her
parents and the family members. Accordingly, case was registered. In her
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, she has
supported the allegations made in the FIR. Upon completion of investigation,
challan was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The
trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record and
statements recorded, convicted and sentenced the present appellant Raju along
with co-accused Vijay.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment inter alia supported the instant application primarily on the ground of
long jail incarceration as so far, the present appellant has already undergone
actual jail sentence of more than 7 years. He further submitted that the Sessions
Court has committed grave illegality while convicting appellant No.1-Raju
Pachvadya Meena. That apart, it is submitted that the impugned judgment
suffers from surmises and conjectures. He is the sole bread earner of the family.
His family is in penury and on the verge of starvation due to long incarceration.
The appeal is of the year 2019 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of this
appeal in the near future. Moreso, benefit of suspension of sentence has already
been extended by this Court to co-accused/appellant No.2-Vijay Pachvadya
Meena vide order dated 19/12/2022. Under such circumstances, learned counsel
prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.1-
Raju Pachvadya Meena.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
1:17:03 PM
Per contra, Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor, opposes the
application and prays for its rejection while supporting the impugned judgment
with submission that complicity of the present appellant in the crime cannot be
ruled out as he abetted the crime while he along with co-accused Vijay had
abducted the prosecutrix. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned
judgement in the matter of grant of benefit of suspension of present appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
present appellant on merits, however, regard being had to the only fact that
present appellant so far has already undergone jail incarceration of more than 7
years and that benefit of suspension of sentence has already been extended by
this Court to co-accused/appellant No.2-Vijay Pachvadya Meena vid e order
dated 19/12/2022 couple with the fact that the appeal which is of the year 2019
is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view that present
appellant - Raju Pachvadya Meena is entitled to the benefit of suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.15925 of 2023 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant No.1-Raju Pachvadya Meena shall remain
suspended during pendency of the present appeal and he shall be released on
bail subject to verification of the factum of depositing the fine amount and on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac
only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
8/1/2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
1:17:03 PM
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(ROHIT ARYA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
1:17:03 PM
