Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veeru Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1408 of 2024
(VEERU AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 01-02-2024
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Ramadhar Choubey appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Heard on the question of admission;
Record of the court below be called for.
Also heard on I.A.No. 1812 of 2024, first application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant
with an alternative prayer for grant of temporary bail as record has not been
received.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by
Third Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Vidisha in
Special ST No. 07/2023, whereby, appellant has been convicted and sentenced
under Sections 354 and 354 (gha) of IPC to undergo maximum rigorous
imprisonment for one year with maximum fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly
convicted the appellant without appreciating the evidence available on record.
There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses. Further, submission is that appellant has been acquitted
from the charges under Sections 7/7 of POCSO Act, 294 and 506 of IPC.
Further under same sets of evidence he was acquitted u/s. 354 (d) of IPC.
Learned Trial Court has also ignored the fact that the father of the prosecutrix
as well her uncle have not supported her statement as well as case of
prosecution. Prosecutrix has turned hostile. The appellant was on bail during
trial and never misused the liberty so granted to him He further submits that the
trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellants for a period
of one month from the date of judgment i.e. 05.1.2024. The appeal is likely to
take long time to conclude. Hence, he prayed to suspend the jail sentence and
grant of bail to appellant.
Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for
its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, it is directed that subject to
depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal
bond by appellant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall
remain temporarily suspended and he be released on bail for a period of two (2)
months from the date of this order.
The appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial
Court immediately after lapse of interim bail period of two months and
file relevant documents with regard to surrender before the Registry of
this Court.
Trial Court is directed to intimate this Court regarding surrender
of appellant.
List this matter on 21/02/2024.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
ar
