Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepu @ Rinku Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 10582 of 2023
(DEEPU @ RINKU YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 04-10-2023
Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Goyal - learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No. 16554/2023, first application under Section 389
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Appellant stand convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections
9(m)/10 and 11(i)/12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced under Section 9(m)/10
of the POCSO Act to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs. 3000/- and
sentenced under Section 11(i)12 of the POCSO Act to undergo one year RI
with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 31/07/2023 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Children
from Sexual Offence) Act, Morena (M.P.) in Special Case No. 95/2022.
Learned Counsel for appellant referring to statement of prosecutrix and
her parents submits that there are material inconsistency in the prosecution
evidence. The victim and her mother stated presence of witness Rahul and
mother on the spot but they were not examined. In view of interestedness of
prosecution witnesses, the inconsistency is material. The learned Trial Court
has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant
without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material
contractions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Fine amount has
already been deposited by the appellant. The appeal is of year 2023 and there is
no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. On these grounds, learned
Counsel prays that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent State opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court and also
subject to deposit of the fine amount (if not already deposited) for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/11/2023 and on further
dates as may be directed by the Registry in that regard.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 16554/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
list this matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Prachi
PRACHI
MISHRA
2023.10.05
09:48:18
+05'30'
