Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 222 of 2022
(SUNIL YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 10-05-2024
Shri Pratip Visoriya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Man Singh Jadon- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.12283/2023, First application preferred under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and granted of bail on behalf of
the appellant - Sunil Yadav.
The appellant - Sunil Yadav along with other co-accused persons stood
convicted for the offence under Section 376 (2)(dha) of IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-; under Section 376 (2)(jha)
of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-;
under Section 376(gha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with
fine of Rs.50,000/-; with default stipulations respectively vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 25/11/2021 passed by the Special Judge
(POCSO) Act and II Additional Sessions Judge, District-Datia in
S.T.No.28/2014.
As per prosecution story, on 25/05/2014 prosecutrix aged about 14 years
went to school with her friend to enquire about her mark-sheet, but she did not
come back home. Despite, intensive search, she could not be traced, therefore,
her father lodged a missing person report with an allegation that prosecutrix has
been abducted by an unknown person. On the basis of which, the FIR was
registered at Crime No. 46/2014 at Police Station Basai for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g), 368, 120-B, 34 of IPC and
Section 4 of POCSO Act. Prosecutrix was recovered on 02/06/2014. Her
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03/06/2014 and on the
same day, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the
Magistrate. In her statement, she divulged that while she was going to school,
co-accused Arvind came on the motorcycle. Initially, he inquired about where
she was going and then forced her to sit on the pillion seat. Thereafter, she was
drove away to Badora crossing (chouraha) where his sister / co-accused Kaluri
met them and she sat behind the prosecutrix, wherefrom all three of them went
to the house of Kaluri in village Mukrora, Talbehat where she was kept for 5-6
days. During this period, prosecutrix was sexually abused by co-accused
Deepak and appellant - Sunil. Thereafter, she was taken to the house of
Ramlal. When they were talking about selling her, somehow she managed to
escape from there and reached Siddbaba Temple and called her brother-in-law
(Jija). Thereafter, she alongwith her Jija reached to Police Station Basai. After
investigation, police submitted final report and the case was committed to the
Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after critical evaluation of the evidence
available on record, passed the impugned judgment and convicted appellant for
the offence as referred above.
Shri Pratip Visoria , learned counsel for the appellant while taking
exception to the impugned judgment firstly submitted that the trial Court has
committed grave illegality while convicting appellant for the offence as referred
above. The judgment is based on surmises and conjecture as it suffers from
perversity of approach. Relevant piece of evidence has been ignored by the
trial Court. There is no incriminating material found against the appellant either
attributing any overt act or crucial role facilitating the alleged crime of sexual
abuse tantamounting to rape. That apart, DNA report in respect of present
appellant is negative and does not support the prosecution case. It is further
submitted that the prosecutrix has married. Co-accused Smt. Kaluri alias Suman
has already been extended benefit of suspension of jail sentence and grant of
bail vide order dated 29.04.2022. During trial, appellant was on bail and he
never misused the liberty so extended. The appellant has so far undergone jail
incarceration of total period of two years and nine months. The appeal is of
2022 and is not likely to be heard in near future. Hence, in the obtaining facts
and circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to appellant - Sunil Yadav, on such terms and conditions, as this Court
deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the
application laying emphasis on paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment submits
that in the light of the statement of prosecutrix that appellant had abused her
sexually. This itself suggest his complicity in the crime. Hence, no exception
can be taken in the matter of suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains
from commenting any opinion on the merits of the case, but regard being had to
the fact that the appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of final
hearing of the appeal in the near future, in the obtaining facts and circumstances,
we are inclined to suspend jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.12283/2023 is allowed. It is directed that the jail
sentence of the appellant - Sunil Yadav shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the Principal
Registrar of this Court on 12.08.2024 and thereafter on other subsequent dates
as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-
1. Appellant - Sunil shall mark his presence before the concerned police
station twice in every month.
2. Appellant shall not move to the place of resident of complainant at any
point of time. Besides, if appellant is found to be involved in any such activity
much less criminal activity causing threat to peace and tranquility in the area or
life and liberty of the complainant and others in any way, the respondent/ State
as well as complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation
of his bail.
Appellant - Sunil is further directed to appear before the Registry of this
Court first on 12/08/2024 and thereafter, 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.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Chandni
