Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 8087 of 2023
(SANJAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 05-10-2023
Shri Dinesh Singh Tomar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri PPS Vajeeta - Public Prosecutor for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.15714 of 2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved by
the sole appellant - Sanjay.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 12/06/2023 passed by
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Picchore, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in SST.
No.20/2019 whereby, appellant has been convicted and sentenced under
Section 363 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of Seven Years with fine
of Rs.1,000/- under Section 366 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of
Ten Years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, under Section 506 Part-II of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of Three Years with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section
3/4 of POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of Ten Years with fine of
Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly
convicted the appellant without appreciating the material available on record. It
is further argued that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident is highly
suspicious in the light of the fact that in her statement recorded u/S.164 of
Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix mentioned her age 17 years and 7 months. Further
argument is that her parents in their Police statement mentioned the age of
prosecutrix between 16 to 17 years. It is further argued that there are material
omissions and contradictions in respect to the evidence of prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 05-10-2023
05:57:04 PM
witnesses. Prosecutrix in her medical examination has not made allegation
against the present appellant and mentioned that she and appellant went to
Indore at appellant's sister house. The evidence adduced by prosecution reveals
that the prosecutrix left her house on her own volition at midnight and did not
try to escape or raise alarm allegedly abducted by the appellant. It is further
argued that the DNA swabs taken did not match with the appellant. It is further
argued that the appellant has already served almost seven months of
incarceration as against ten years R.I. awarded. This appeal is likely to take long
time to conclude. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the jail sentence and grant
of bail to appellant.
Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and argued
that as per the FSL report, Y-STR DNA profile obtained from Panty of
prosecutrix matches completely with Y-STR DNA profile obtained from the
blood sample of accused. Hence, he prays for dismissal of present application
for suspension of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, I.A. No.15714 of 2023 is hereby
allowed. Subject to depositing fine amount, if not already deposited, and on
furnishing personal bond by the appellant in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail. Appellant is further directed to
mark his appearance before the Office of this Court o n 22.12.2023 and on
subsequent dates given by the Office in this regard, till final disposal of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 05-10-2023
05:57:04 PM
appeal.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
vpn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 05-10-2023
05:57:04 PM
