Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Lalita Singaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7497 of 2022
(SMT. LALITA SINGAUR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 22-05-2024
Shri R.S. Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Surdeep Khamparia - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Amar Prakash Gupta - Advocate for the complainant.
Prosecutrix and her husband are present in person.
Heard on I.A. No. 2473/2024 in respect of appellant No.2 Pramod Patel.
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by
the appellant against the judgment dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned 4th
Additional Sessions and Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mandla, Distt. Mandla in
S.C. No. 09/2017 whereby each appellants have been convicted under Section
366 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- , under
Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.
2,000/- and under Section 370-A of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven
years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulations.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that trial Court
erred in convicting the appellants and awarding the jail sentence. It was not a
case of rape at the instance of present appellant. It was Kamlesh who allegedly
committed rape. Even otherwise appellant No.2 suffered sufficient period of
custody and realizing the mistake and nature of allegations, prosecutrix herself
intend to settle the matter, therefore, an application under Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant vide I.A. No. 2857/2024, I.A.
No.2855/2024 and I.A. No.2859/2024. She is living with her husband Sandeep
Kushwaha and living in matrimonial fold at Mandla peacefully. Therefore, she
does not want to prosecute the matter further. Appellant does not bear any
criminal record. Hearing of appeal shall take sometime. He undertake to abide
by terms and conditions imposed by this Court. On these grounds, prayer for
suspension of sentence has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and
submits that trial Court has found the case of appellant No.2 implicative,
therefore, conviction has been awarded.
Learned counsel for the complainant on the basis of instructions received
from complainant extent no objection.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court intends
to allow the application with stringent conditions, subject to deposit of fine
amount, it is directed that jail sentence of appellant No.2- Pramod Patel shall
remain suspended subject to appellant furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before Registry of this
Court on 14.10.2024 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this
regard.
1 . Appellant No.2 shall not move in the vicinity of the
victim/prosecutrix side and shall not be source of embarrassment and
harassment to the victim in any manner, otherwise his benefit of
suspension of sentence shall immediately be withdrawn.
I.A.No.2473/2024 stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
R
