Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Vanshkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8642 of 2023
(SURESH VANSHKAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 17-02-2024
Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K. Kashyap - Government Advocate for the respondent-State of
M.P.
Heard on I.A.No.21776 of 2023 which is first application under Section
389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant
No.1 - Suresh Vanshkar and appellant No.2 - Manvendra Vanshkar arising out
of judgment dated 28.06.2023 delivered in S.T No.12/2019 passed by Fifth
Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh District Tikamgarh.
The appellants have been convicted under Section 376 (D) of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I for 20 years with fine of Rs.5000/- each and
under Section 506-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years
each, with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecutrix is a
married lady and FIR was lodged on 15.11.2018, while the act is alleged to have
taken place on 09.11.2018, while the prosecutrix was visiting her paternal home
at Tikamgarh. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the act is alleged
to have been committed by use of force on the prosecutrix but in the medical
report Exhibit.P/2, no injury is found on the body of the prosecutrix. It is
further stated that FIR as well as statement under Sections 164 as well as Court
statement recorded by the trial Court it is alleged that the door was bolted by
the accused persons before committing the crime of sexual assault on the
prosecutrix. However, referring to paragarphs No.3 and 6 of deposition of
prosecutrix PW-1. It is stated that there were no doors in the room where the
act is alleged to have been committed. Thus, the incident as alleged by the
prosecution is doubtful. It is further argued that the DNA report is also
inconclusive. The appeal is of the year 2023 and there is no possibility of early
hearing of this appeal in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of the present
appellant may be suspended.
The prayer is opposed by learned Government Counsel on the basis of
objection
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and bleak chances of final
hearing in near future, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits
of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of
appellant No.1 and appellant No.2.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 21776 of 2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellants is hereby suspended and it is directed
that appellant No1 - Suresh Vanshkar and appellant No.2 - Manvendra
Vanshkar be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to
appear before the trial Court, Tikamgarh District Tikamgarh on
29.04.2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prar
