Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivratan Yadan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 CRA-7334-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7334 of 2022
(SHIVRATAN YADAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 06-08-2024
Shri S. S. Baghel - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Record of the Court below is available.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A No.18688 of 2024 , which is the third application
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail,
moved on behalf of the appellant..
The appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 363 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under
Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentence to undergo RI for 7
years with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court has
erred in not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and
contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant is
in jail for more than two years and during trial, he was on bail but did not
misuse the liberty so granted. He further submits that there is no likelihood
of hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for
2 CRA-7334-2022
suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
application and prays for its rejection.
This is third application for suspension of sentence. The earlier two
applications being I.A. No.6775/2023 & 8332/2024 were dismissed as
withdrawn vide orders dated 13.02.2024 and 02.05.2024. In the last order of
2.5.2024 the appellant was granted liberty to revive the prayer after suffering
a longer period of incarceration. It is claimed that the appellant is in custody
for almost two years and seven months. The impugned order shows that he
was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of Section
3/4 of the POCSO Act. Considering the total period of imprisonment
awarded under the impugned judgment, the period undergone by the
appellant cannot be considered as substantial.
The application has also been argued on merits. It has been claimed
that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Her age was wrongly found to be
around 17 years by the trial court and for this, the testimony of mother of
prosecutrix was argued at length but even on that basis the age of prosecutrix
comes under 18 years at the time of incident. The consent of minor
prosecutrix has no relevance in a case under the POCSO Act.
Counsel for the appellant has also referred to the testimony of school
teacher Ram Prasad Singh (P.W.9). He was the person who registered the
admission of prosecutrix in the school but from his testimony it cannot be
gathered that the age of prosecutrix written in the scholar register was
incorrect.
3 CRA-7334-2022
On the basis of above discussion, the application under consideration
is dismissed.
List for final hearing in January 2025.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
