Madhya Pradesh High Court
Singram 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. 2591 of 2021
(SINGRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 17-02-2024
Shri Rajeev Sharma- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri P.P.S. Bazeeta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1879 of 2024, second repeat application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant- Singram Singh. His first application was dismissed as
withdrawn on 26-06-2023.
Present appellant stood convicted under Sections 376-D of IPC and
sentenced to undergo LI with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Section 376(2)(ii) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.3,000/-, Section 366-A of
IPC and sentenced to undergo 05 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section
363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,00/- with
default stipulations repectively vide judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09-02-2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Special Sessions
Trial No.100018 of 2015.
The present appellant so far has undergone four years and seven months
incarceration as stated by counsel for the appellant.
As per prosecution story, on 01.11.2014 at about 18:05, father of
prosecutrix (PW-4) lodged a missing report, inter alia, alleging that he resides
along with his family at Village Bhannakheda trisection where he had a shop of
tea, breakfast and repairing of puncture. On the fateful previous night at about
09:00, he had gone to agricultural field for having meals. His wife (PW-2), son
(PW-6) and daughter/prosecutrix (PW-1) were at home. On the said date, at
about 5:00 -06:00 in the morning, his son (PW-6) informed him in agricultural
field that prosecutrix is missing. When he returned home, his wife (PW-2)
apprised him that at about 02:00- 02:30 in the night, brother of prosecutrix
(PW-6) after closing shop slept outside and they were sleeping inside. At about
06:00 in the morning, when she woke up, she found that rosecutrix was missing
and doors were open. After intensive search, prosecutrix could not be traced
out. A small shop (Gumti) of co-accused Manphool Sharma was at the
trisection, which was closed on that day. He had suspicion that co-accused
Manphool Sharma after extending enticement had taken his daughter-
prosecutrix somewhere with him. On the basis of such information, Sub-
Inspector Mr. S.P. Vishwakarma posted at Shamshabad Chowki, wrote it down
on Zero number, which thereafter sent to PS Shamshabad where on the basis of
it, FIR at Crime No.346 of 2014 was reduced in writing. Investigation was set in
motion. Prosecutrix was recovered on 03.11.2014 vide Ex.P-2 and was
subjected to medical examination. During investigation, on the basis of
statement of co-accused Manphool, present appellant was arrested and
investigation was started against him also. Upon completion of investigation
including recording of statements of witnesses, collection of evidence and
necessary formalities, challan was filed. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of
evidence placed on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as
mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the present appellant while taking exception to the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submits that Sessions
Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective.
The judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures. The learned Trial Court
failed to appreciate that prosecutrix (PW-1) in para 21 of her deposition has
stated that did not know the present appellant and only after he was made
accused in the case, she know him. That apart, though it is alleged that
prosecutrix was minor but mother of prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 9 of her
deposition, has stated that prosecutrix used to cast vote in Sarpanch elections.
There is no documentary evidence as regards the date of birth of prosecutrix.
Even otherwise, medical report does not suggest that prosecutrix was subjected
to forcible intercourse. For a period of two and half days, prosecutrix was with
the co-accused without informing anybody or without raising alarm at any point
of time. Besides, appellant has already undergone four years and seven months'
incarceration. It is further submitted that co-accused Manphool Sharma has
already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17-01-2024 passed
in Cr.A. No.1986 of 2021 (I.A. No.25837 of 2021) and appellant seeks parity
with Manphool, the appeal being of 2021 is not likely to be decided in 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 counsel for the State, appearing on behalf of
respondent- State, while supporting the judgment impugned, submits that upon
consideration of relevant evidence on record, the Trial Court has reached to a
logical conclusion and rightly convicted the present appellant as referred above,
hence, no exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to 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, regard being had to the fact that present appellant so far has undergone
four years and seven months' incarceration coupled with the fact that co-
accused Manphool Sharma has already been enlarged on bail by this Court
(supra), appeal which is of the year 2021 is not likely to be decided in the near
future, and 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.1879 of 2024 stands allowed and it is directed that
the jail sentence of appellant- Singram Singh 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 Lac 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 10-05-2024 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) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
vc
VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
2024.02.17
17:44:33
+05'30'
