Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7015 of 2023
(PRADEEP JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 05-02-2024
Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.22575/2023, second application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant- Pradeep Jatav.
Present appellant stood convicted under Section 450 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of
Rs.10,000/-, Section 458 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Section 506 Part II of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulations,
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2023 passed by
Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Datia (M.P.) in Special Case No.25/2020.
The present appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of one year and
15 days, as stated by learned counsel for appellant.
As per prosecution case, prosecutrix (PW-1) submitted an application at
Police Station Bhander District Datia to the effect that on 15.06.2020, her
parents and brother went to her cousin aunt's place for attending a wedding.
Prosecutrix, her grandmother, younger sister and brother were at home. At
night, her grandmother was slept at the courtyard and sister & brother were
sleeping on the terrace. She was lying down in the drawing room and watching
TV. The light of the room was on, then at around 01:00 am in the night,
someone knocked the door. When she asked as to who is there, then accused
Pradeep replied that it is me, then she opened the door, Pradeep Jatav was at
the door and as soon as she saw him, he placed a katta on her temple and by
grabbing her right hand forcibly dragged her to the bed (takhat) in the room and
started taking off her clothes and told her to let him do whatever he was doing
and threatened her that if she makes any noise, he would kill her. Then Pradeep
forcibly committed rape upon her. When she started screaming, her
grandmother came. On seeing her, the accused ran away from there. Thereafter,
she told the whole incident to her grandmother. On the basis of such
information, the FIR was registered. Investigation was set in motion. Upon
completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of
evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed and the case was
committed to the Court of Special Judge for trial. The Special Judge on
appreciation of evidence placed on record convicted and sentenced the present
appellant, as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the Court below has
not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. The medical report and the
DNA profile do not suggest complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime. He
further submits that appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of 1 year and
15 days. The appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty
so granted to him. The appeal being of 2023 is not likely to be decided in the
near future. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the present
appellant may be extended the benefit of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of
the respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant.
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
undergone incarceration 01 year 15 days and that the appeal which is of the
year 2023 is not likely to be decided in the near future, in the obtaining facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that present appellant is entitled to
the benefit of suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, IA No.22575/2023, stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of present 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 his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on
09.05.2024 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.
Accordingly, the said IA stands allowed and disposed of.
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.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
