Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 989 of 2024
(NARENDRA VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 29-02-2024
Shri D.S. Tomar - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal, being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.
Heard on I.A. No. 3737 of 2024, which is first application under
Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by
the appellant No.1- Narendra Vishwakarma.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 27.12.2023 passed by
VIIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Guna, District
Guna (M.P.) in ST No.164/2020, whereby appellant has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 363 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two
years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 366 d of IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly
convicted the appellant ignoring the fact that there are material contradictions in
respect to the age of prosecutrix at the time of incident. It is further submitted
that in FIR (Exhibit P/1) and in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of CrPC, age of prosecutrix is mentioned as 18 years. Even in her
Court's statement, she has stated that her date of birth is 05/07/1999, therefore,
the date of birth of prosecutrix as 05/07/2002 becomes highly doubtful. The
father of prosecutrix in his statement stated that he had told the school authority
the date of birth of prosecutrix on speculation. Under these circumstances, so
also in the light of the fact that DNA report does not match and prosecutrix had
gone on motorcycle on her own volition, the appellant has wrongly been
convicted. Further submission is that the appellant has already served almost
four months of incarceration out of total jail sentence of five years. The appeal
is likely to take long time to conclude. Appellant has hope and believe that he
would succeed. Hence, he prayed to suspend the jail sentence and grant of bail
to appellant looking to the short period of jail sentence.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available
on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
without commenting on merits of the case, I.A. No.3737 of 2024 is hereby
allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on
furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and
appellant No.1- Narendra Vishwakarma be released on bail. He is further
directed to mark his appearance before the Office of this Court o n 29.5.2024
and on subsequent dates given by the Office in this regard, till final disposal of
this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for
compliance.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
Monika
