Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeevan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-2369-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 2369 of 2024
(JEEVAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 06-08-2024
Shri Gopal Krishna Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Prosecutrix is present in person and she has been identified by the
respective counsel.
Heard on I.A.No.2829/2024, which is first application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant - Jeevan S/o Narsingh.
Appellant stands convicted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024, passed by
Special Judge(POCSO Act), 2012, Ratlam, District Ratlam(M.P.) in S.C.
No.45/2022 and sentenced under Section 366 of IPC for 10 years RI with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act
sentenced to 20 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
On the last date of hearing i.e. on 31.07.2024, it was directed to
inform the prosecutrix to remain present on the next date of hearing. In
compliance of the aforesaid order of the Court, the prosecutrix is present
today and she has stated before this Court that the now she has got married
with the present appellant and they had a female child of 4 months which
unfortunately died. She has also stated that after their marriage, she is
residing with the parents of the present appellant.
2 CRA-2369-2024
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
prosecution has failed to establish that the victim was below the age of 18
years at the time of alleged offence. There is no ossification test report
available on record to substantiate the exact age of the victim/prosecutrix. So
far as DNA report is concerned, the same is positive/matching. Even
otherwise, the same does not help to the prosecution as during the course of
trial, the appellant has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix as per ritual
of the tribal community and they had a female child of 4 months which
unfortunately died. The aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the trial
Court, but erred in not taking on record. He further submits that the Appeal is
of the year 2024 and its final disposal will take considerable long time. In
these circumstances, prayer is made to release the appellant on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer.
A n application - I.A. No.7582/2024 has also been filed on behalf of
the prosecutrix wherein it is stated she has no objection if the jail sentence of
the appellant is suspended and he is enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7582/2024 is allowed/disposed of.
On due consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and so also the statement given my the prosecutrix before this Court,
coupled with the fact that final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near
future, without commenting on the merits of the case, I.A. No. 2829/2024 is
allowed. It is directed that upon depositing the fine amount (if not already
deposited) and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to
3 CRA-2369-2024
the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant
- Jeevan S/o Narsingh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal
and he shall be released on bail. He shall appear before the concerned trial
Court firstly on 20.11.2024 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be
fixed in this behalf by that Court.
I.A.No.2829/2024 stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
