Anil Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15566 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR CRA No. 3109 of 2023 (ANIL JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 21-09-2023 Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for appellant.

Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for State. Heard on I.A. No.15885/2023, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant- Anil Jatav.

Appellant stood convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/12/2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Shivpuri (M.P.) in S.C. No.52/2021.

Appellant so far has undergone incarceration of two years and six months.

A s per prosecution story, appellant alleged to have manipulated the prosecutrix and eloped with her on 13/12/2020. Thereafter, they both checked- in Sun Rise Hotel at Shivpuri where appellant alleged to have sexually abused

her on the false promise of marriage. When she asked him for marriage, appellant threatened her with dire consequences. On the date of filing of the FIR i.e. 28/03/2021, the prosecutrix stated to be 15 years and 11 months old. On the basis of aforesaid incident, FIR was registered and upon completion of investigation, challan was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Trial. The Sessions Court after proper evaluation of evidence placed on record has convicted the appellant and sentenced as aforesaid.

Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned judgment submits that it is the case of false implication. The appellant and prosecutrix have been in live-in relationship. The FIR was lodged after three months of the alleged incident and there is no explanation of such delay in lodging the FIR. As regards her age, the Sessions Court in paragraphs 17 and 18 had disbelieved the school register. Besides, from the medical report and the deposition of P.W.-3 Dr. Mona Gupta, it is well reflected that there were no injuries external or otherwise and her hymen was found to be old ruptured and healed. Even otherwise, appellant has already suffered two years and six months of incarceration. Appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no

likelihood of the early hearing of the appeal. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays that benefit of suspension of sentence may be extended to present appellant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned judgment opposed the suspension application and prayed for its rejection with submission that the Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence available on record has passed impugned judgment. The DNA test report is found positive indeed, after conception, the FIR has been lodged, hence no case is made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the case, but regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has suffered incarceration of 02 years and 06 months, the appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, appellant is held entitled for suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly, I.A.No.15885/2023 stands allowed and it is directed that jail

sentence of appellant 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 furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 23.11.2023 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.

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.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

          (ROHIT ARYA)                                                           (ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
             JUDGE                                                                          JUDGE

    Pj'S/-

PRINCEE   Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=ce88aa5b434891871d72ac984b02d2ddd305c37fea4a35278b

BARAIYA 8e97535318b1b3, pseudonym=12959D38EFDD4E9F8F02E43EFDDA015080EAA5EA, serialNumber=B281CC6F9792A1E2420AB0ABDD14FAA54B9BC4939B D6AE0DC537A866DD5F2D1D, cn=PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 2023.09.22 15:41:08 +05'30'