Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Korku vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3620 of 2023
(JITENDRA KORKU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 15-05-2024
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pradeep Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Trial Court record has been received.
Heard on admission.
Trial Court record perused.
Prima facie, this appeal seems to be arguable. Hence, admitted for final hearing.
Also Heard on I.A. No.5692/2023, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to appellant No.2 Jujhar Korku, pending the appeal.
Appellant No.2 Jujhar Korku has been convicted for commission of offence under
Sections 16 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation, while his son
main accused Jitendra Korku has been convicted for commission of offence under
Sections 363, 366, 368 of IPC and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, R.I. for 5 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 20 years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- respectively with default stipulations, vide judgment dated 21.02.2023 passed
by Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Nasrullaganj, District Sehore passed in Special
Case No.26/2020 (State of M.P. Vs. Jitendra and others).
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is the father of the
main accused. He has been erroneously convicted. The only allegation against him is that
when his son along with the prosecutrix reached to home, he did not ask him to drop her
at her parental house and not to keep her in his house. It is further submitted that even if
entire evidence of prosecutrix (PW/1) is taken as true, the factum of abetment and
instigation on the part of the present appellant is missing. Learned counsel has referred
para No.4 of the prosecutrix evidence and has submitted that in her deposition, she has
deposed that present appellant had asked his son Jitendra not to keep the prosecutrix in
the house and to release her. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail for the last one
year. There are no allegations against him about committing of rape/aggravated
penetrative sexual assault. The ingredients of abetment/instigation as defined under
Section 107 of the IPC are missing. Appellant has fair chances to succeed in appeal.
Therefore, it is prayed that appellant may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed grant of
bail to the appellant.
We have gone through the evidence of PW/1 and the evidence of the other
witnesses on record and also her statement (Exhibit D/3) recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C.. Having taken into consideration the fact that present appellant is the father of the
main accused and he is in jail for more than one year and there is bleak possibility of
hearing of this appeal in near future, we are inclined to release appellant No.2 on bail.
Consequently, I.A. No.5692/2023 is allowed. The execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.2 Jujhar Korku is hereby suspended subject to depositing the fine
amount, (if not already deposited). It is directed that appellant No.2 be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
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 on 22.10.2024 and also
on such other dates, as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of
this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) (PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
