Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 2424 of 2021
(DEVENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-02-2024
Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A.No. 2537 of 2024, third repeat application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of sole appellant. His earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 16.08.2023 with liberty to revive his prayer after six months.
Present appellant stood convicted under Section 370 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.3000/- and under Section
376 (2) (V) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 11 years' R.I. with fine of
Rs.3000/-, with default stipulations, vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 27.02.2021 passed by Second Additional Sessions/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.165/2017.
The present appellant so far has undergone jail sentence of more than 3
years, as stated by learned counsel for the appellant.
The prosecution's case, in nutshell, is that on 12/5/2017, Ms. Aradhana
Davis, in-charge of women cell of police station Kotwali Shipvuri, while
patrolling, reached the old bus stand Shivpuri, where she met the
complainant/prosecutrix who told that she had come to Bina from her village for
work. There she met a person, namely, Dinesh who lived with her in a rented
house. He told her that his aunt's leg got fractured, therefore, she may go there
for doing her household chores and sent her with Mukesh Dhakad. Thereafter,
Mukesh told her that he had bought her for rupees eighty thousand. Mukesh
used to beat her after consuming alcohol. When she told this to Devendra
Dhakad, Devendra Dhakad took her with him from Mukesh's village Budada 3-4
days ago to Satanwada Shivpuri where he kept her in the house of Kalli
Adiwasi. There, one "Jatav" did bad things to her for two days continuously
without her consent. On 12.05.2017, Devendra took her from Satanwada to the
old bus stand Shivpuri, where they met with Mahima and a disabled person,
with whom Devendra Dhakad fixed a deal to sell her for rupees sixty thousand
and Devendra Dhakad was selling her to Mahima and handicapped Sonu
Kumar for rupees sixty thousand. On the basis of which, the FIR was
registered. 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. The Sessions Court 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 Sessions Court
has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The
judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. Present appellant has falsely
been implicated in the instant case. There are contradictions between the FIR
and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C with regard
to allegation of rape against the present appellant. The appellant was on bail
during trial and he did not misused the liberty granted to him. It is further
submitted that while disposing of the earlier application of appellant on
16.08.2023, this Court had granted liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer
after six months. The appellant so far has suffered incarceration of more than
03 years and the appeal being of the year 2021 is not likely to be decided in the
near future. Under such circumstances, prayer is made f o r suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
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.
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 more than three years and the appeal being of the year 2021 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. 2537 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
24.05.2024 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
