Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 7758 of 2022
(SUNIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-11-2023
Shri Yashraj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri K. K. Tiwari, G.A. for respondent/State.
Shri Sandeep Sethiya, learned counsel for the Respondent [OBJ].
Heard on I.A. No.12009/2022, which is first application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of
appellant- Sunil S/o Jagdish Sutar.
2 . The trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 5/6(1) of
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-,
Section 506-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 1 year with fine of Rs.
1,000/- and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years
RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 02.08.2022, passed by 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Sarangpur, District - Rajgarh (M.P.) in SC No.278/2018.
3. The prosecution story found to be proved is that, on 28.05.2018 the
complaint was lodged to the effect that on 12.05.2018 that the prosecutrix had
gone to attend her classes, when she came out from her classes the present
appellant called her and asked her to come at bus stand otherwise he would kill
her. In fear, she reached the bus stand and thereafter, both of them went to
Sadguru Hotel in Pachor where they had dinner and thereafter the present
appellant committed rape upon her. Due to threat, she did not lodge the report
about the incident.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant
has been falsely implicated in the case. It is a case of consent. The appellant
cannot be prosecuted under the POCSO Act since the prosecutrix was major at
the time of filing of the FIR. The MLC Report is negative and the DNA Report
is also silent on the issue. The prosecution has failed to prove any motive or
intention to prove offence under Section 376 of IPC. The co-accused has been
acquitted by the trial Court. There is delay in lodging of FIR by 15 days. The
learned trial Court brushing aside the material contradictions and omissions
have convicted the appellant. The appellant has put in incarceration for more
than 5 and a 1/2 years. This appeal is of the Year 2022 and final hearing of the
same will take considerable long time. Therefore, it is prayed that remaining jail
sentence of the appellant may be suspended and the appellant may be released
on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State
has opposed the prayer and prays for rejection of the application. The PW-1
prosecutrix in her statement categorically stated that the appellant has
committed that offence. Therefore, merely on the basis of medical report, the
sentence cannot be suspended.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the
fact that final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, we are inclined
to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant, without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A. No.12009/2022 is allowed
and the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.
8. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not
deposited, the appellant shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 23.01.2024, and on
such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final
disposal of this appeal.
9. List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vatan
