Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Vanshkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 367 of 2023
(ROHIT VANSHKAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-02-2024
Ms. Shrishti Kashyap - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Siddhant Jain - Advocate for the objector.
Heard on I.A. No.10428 of 2023, an application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Rohit
Vanshkar arising out of judgment dated 24.11.2022 delivered in Special Case
No. 133/2020 by Special Judge, POCSO Act & 18th ASJ, Jabalpur.
The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.
1000/- and under Section 376(3) of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years
with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the present appellant submits that as per the
prosecution story the appellant sexually assaulted the victim who was aged
about 13 years, 3 months and 24 days. The determination of said age by the
trial court is clearly erroneous. The trial court has considered the Admission
Register of Class -II without considering the Registers/T.C. of previous
classes. The prosecution has manipulated the age of prosecutix since beginning.
Reliance is placed on crime details form (Ex.P-7) which contains an overwriting
on the column relating to age of prosecutrix. Same is the situation with MLC
report (Ex.P-17). The victim and her mother, PW-1 and PW-2 respectively
turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Since appellant and
victim resided in a rented house for about 15 days on their own volition, it
cannot be said that appellant forcibly did any overt act which falls within the
ambit of offending clauses of relevant enactments. The final hearing of this
appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, the remaining jail sentence of present
appellant may be suspended.
Shri Arvind Singh, learned G.A. opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection.
Learned counsel for the objector categorically submitted that he has no
objection if sentence is suspended.
Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of present
appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.10428 of 2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of this appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed
that appellant-Rohit Vanshkar be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
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 Jabalpur on
30.04.2024 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
sarathe
