Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeevan @ Kundan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7306 OF 2022
(Jeevan @ Kundan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 23.02.2024
Mr. Nilesh Dave, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Kamal Tiwari, counsel for the respondent/State.
_____________________________________________________
Heard on the point of admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Record has been received.
Also heard on IA No.2645 of 2022 which is an application
for urgent hearing. For the reasons stated in the application, the
same is allowed and disposed of.
Heard on IA No.2667 of 2024 which is second application
filed under Section 389 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on
behalf of appellant - Jeevan @ Kundan S/o Bherulal who has
been convicted by learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012,
District-Shajapur (MP) in Session Trial No.125/2020 vide
judgment dated 16.07.2022 and has been sentenced him as under:
Conviction Sentence
Section & Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in
Amount lieu of fine
363 IPC 03 years RI Rs.1,000/- 03 months RI
366 IPC 05 years RI Rs.1,000/- 03 months RI
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7306 OF 2022
(Jeevan @ Kundan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
376 (3) IPC 20 years RI Rs.1,000/- 01 year RI
5L/6 POCSO 20 years RI Rs.1,000/- 01 year RI
Act, 2012
5(J)(ii)/6 20 years RI Rs.1,000/- 01 year RI
POCSO Act,
Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence. He
submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of two
days. The date of incident is 26.01.2020 while the missing report
and FIR has been lodged on 28.01.2020 without any explanation.
He contends that prosecutrix was the consenting party and she has
remained in the company of appellant for about seven months and
twelve days and she did not make any hue or cry and she has not
narrated the incident to anybody. The final disposal of appeal is
likely to take sufficient long time. Hence prays for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed
the application and prays for its rejection.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it was found that prosecutrix was below than sixteen years
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7306 OF 2022
(Jeevan @ Kundan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)
of age at the time of incident and she was having a child with the
appellant. It has been seen that DNA report is positive so looking
to the age of prosecutrix, her consent has no value and considering
other facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the suspension application - IA No.2667 of 2024
stands rejected.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
