Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhabhuti @ Vijay Valmiki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 582 of 2022
(BHABHUTI @ VIJAY VALMIKI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 25-10-2023
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey - Advocate for the appellant - Bhabhuti @
Vijay Valmiki.
Shri Arvind Singh - Govenrment Advocate for respondent- State of M.P.
Heard on I.A No.18743/2023, an application under Section 389(1) of
the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant -
Bhabhuti @ Vijay Valmiki arising out of judgment dated 30/11/2021 delivered
in SC ATR-132/2013 by Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 District
Narsinghpur.
T h e appellant has been convicted under Section 368 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 05 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and under Section
3, 4 r/w Section 16/17 of POCSO Act sentenced to undergo RI for 7 yeras with
fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset,
submits that the maximum sentence imposed on this appellant is for a period of
7 years and informed that this Court on 01.08.2022 permitted the appellant to
renew the application after a period of one year. It is argued that as per
prosecution story, the main accused is Raja. Raja allegedly took the victim to
appellant's house and stayed their for some time. During the night, he sexually
assaulted the victim. The victim (PW-1) on her cross-examination categorically
deposed that when she was sexually assaulted by main accused Raja, she cried
but since a cooler was on, the present appellant could not hear the same. Thus,
there is no clinching material to connect the appellant from the commission of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 10/26/2023
11:05:27 AM
rime. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that appellant had knowledge
about the crime. The knowledge is sine qua non for convicting the appellant
for the offences for which he has been convicted. Out of seven years, appellant
completed almost 2 1/2 years of sentence and final hearing of this appeal is not
possible in near future. Thus, the remaining jail sentence of appellant may be
suspended.
Shri Arvind Singh, Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the
basis of para-77 of the impugned judgment.
We have heard the parties and perused the record.
Considering the total sentence imposed and period undergone and the
fact that the possibilities of final hearing of this appeal of 2022 are bleak in near
furture, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper
to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant - Bhabhuti @ Vijay Valmiki.
Accordingly, I.A No.18743/2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that
appellant - Bhabhuti @ Vijay Valmiki be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Narsinghpur on 4th
of December, 2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial
Court in this regard during the pendency of this Appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 10/26/2023
11:05:27 AM
sarathe
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 10/26/2023
11:05:27 AM
