Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parasram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 7469 of 2023
(PARASRAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 22-05-2024
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned Deputy Advocate General.
Heard on I.A. No.13336/2023 which is an application for urgent hearing.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.13336/2023 is
allowed.
2. Also heard on I.A. No.13335/2023, an application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C.for suspension of execution of sentence appellant and
enlargement on bail.
3. The appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 366, 376 (1)
of IPC and Section 3(1) (w) (i) and Section 3(2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to
undergo 3 years R.I., 10 years R.I., 1 year R.I. and Life Imprisonment and fine
of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation.
4. The appellant/accused has been convicted for committing penetrative
sexual assault towards victim (PW-1) belonging to Scheduled Tribe category
whereas the appellant/accused does not belong to Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes category after abducting her during 23.11.2021 to 06.12.2021.
According to the prosecution story on 23.11.2021 between 06:00 to 09:00 PM,
the prosecutrix was taken away outside from her house, when she was sitting
there. She was taken to Porbandar (Gujarat) and was kept in a hut where the
appellant committed rape upon her. After the report of father, the police
investigated the case and then the prosecutrix was recovered and upon her
statement, a case was registered against the appellant/accused.
5. This application has been preferred on the ground that the Trial Court
has committed error in not considering the material omissions and
contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and also committed
error in believing the prosecution witnesses and discarding defence version. It is
also argued that the victim was major at the time of incident and was remained
with the appellant/accused for 15 days. This matter was consensual in nature.
Under the influence of the parents matter was reported to the police.
6. Despite service of the notice, no one appeared on behalf of the victim.
7. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer by submitting reply through
document No.13069/2023 and again vide document No.1997/2024 referring
para No.25, 28, 36 and 41 of the impugned judgment and the gravity of the
offence, nature of crime, age etc and submitted that that application deserves to
be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record available with file.
8. Considered the para 1 and 5 of statement of victim (PW-1) in which it
is stated that during the stay in Gujarat, both were working as labour and used
to go at work alongwith each other and in the light of the arguments advanced
on behalf of the appellant, we deem it fit to suspend the remaining jail sentence
of the appellant, without going to the merits of the case.
9. Accordingly, I.A. No.13335/2023 is allowed and it is directed that
subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court,
the execution of substantial jail sentence of the sole appellant shall remain
suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.
10. The appellant after being enlarged on bail shall mark his presence
before the trial Court on 11/11/2024 and thereafter on all such subsequent dates,
as may be fixed in this behalf.
11. List the case for final hearing in due course.
12. In light of judgment passed in case of Aparna Bhat Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in LL 2021 SC 168, copy of this order be sent to
the victim.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
