Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 26 of 2019
(VIKRAM YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-02-2024
Shri Anand Gupta- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajesh Shukla - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.1318 of 2024, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of
appellant- Vikram Yadav.
Present appellant stood convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Section 506
Part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 457 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3000/-, Section 354 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of
Rs.2000/- and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulations,
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2018 passed by
First Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur, in Sessions Trial No.86/2016.
The present appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of about seven
years and seven months, as stated by learned counsel for the appellant.
Prosecution story, in nutshell is that on 26.07.2016, prosecutrix along
with her father lodged a report at Police Station Karahal to the effect that on
25.07.2016, at about 08:00 pm, the father of prosecutrix had gone for milking
cow and her mother went to ease herself and she was alone at home. Seeing her
alone, Vikram Yadav caught hold of her and started trying to do wrong thing
with her. When she screamed, her parents and other people came; seeing them,
the accused ran away from the spot. Even 10-15 days before Holi when her
parents were not at home, the accused Vikram, by entering into her house and
stuffing a cloth in her mouth and throwing her on the ground, had done bad
thing with her and threatened her that if she tells this to anyone, he would kill
her. After that, Vikram Yadav did bad things with her two-three times within 10-
15 days. Due to fear, she did not tell this to anyone. On the basis of which, 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
Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court on appreciation of evidence
placed on record convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as mentioned
above.
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. It is submitted that the present
appellant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The mother of the
prosecutrix has turned hostile. It is further submitted that the appellant so far
has suffered jail sentence of about seven years and seven months and the appeal
being of 2019 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 appellant so far has suffered jail
incarceration of about seven years and seven months and the appeal being of
the year 2019 is not likely to be decided in the near future, we are of the view
that present appellant is entitled to the benefit of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1318 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of 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
22.05.2024 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
