Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprasad Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3024 of 2017
(RAMPRASAD DHURVE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-09-2023
Shri Tribhuvan Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
IA No.15456 of 2022 is filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail. The deceased was a boy aged 5 years.
T h e accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 5 (M) and 5(R) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
further convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for 10
years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, RI for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- and RI for 5
years and fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations as mentioned
in the impugned judgment.
The case of the prosecution is that the accused having accosted the boy,
committed the unnatural offence on him. Thereafter when the boy raised alarm,
even he murdered him. However, learned counsel for the appellant contends
that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and
there is no material to implicate the accused. The same is disputed by the State.
On hearing learned counsels, we do not find that it is a fit case where the
bail can be granted. Even though it is a case of circumstantial evidence, but the
prosecution has established all the links in the prosecution case. We do not find
any glaring error committed by the trial court that calls for any interference.
However, these are all matters that can be considered at the stage of final
hearing.
So far as the grant of bail is concerned, we have taken into consideration
the fact that the deceased was just a child aged 5 years. Brutal offence has been
committed against him. He has also succumbed to death.
The further contention is that he has already undergone the custody of 8
years. Hence, by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
05.10.2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.4633 of 2021 (Saudan Singh vs. The
State of U.P. and others), he be released on bail. Considering the same, we are
of the view that even on this ground, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
Certain exceptions have been carved out in the said judgment. In which it
is stated that the period of custody will not become a relevant factor in certain
cases. This is one of the rarest cases where the manner in which the offence has
been brutally committed on a child, who is hardly 5 years of age, certainly
comes within the exceptions as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment. Hence, we find that even so far as the period of custody is
concerned, he is not entitled to be released on bail. IA No.15456 of 2022 is
dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SKM
Digitally signed by SANTOSH
MASSEY
Date: 2023.09.28 13:32:50 +05'30'
