Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tikku @ Tikaram Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 3946 of 2021
(TIKKU @ TIKARAM SEN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-05-2024
Smt. Archana Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.13275/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Tikku @
Tikaram Sen.
The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.03.2021 passed by
learned Special Judge, Jabalpur in Special case No.58/2019, whereby the
appellant stands convicted for the offence under Sections 376(A)(B) and 376(2)
(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
20 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation
of 2 years Rigorous imprisonment and 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation of 1 year rigorous imprisonment,
respectively. Both the sentences to be undergone simultaneously.
It is submitted by Smt. Archana Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant
that though DNA report reveals that semen of the accused was found on the
undergarment of the victim as well as on the sheet used to cover the body, but
there was no sign of any injury or any opinion of penetrative sex as given by Dr.
Chhavi Shrivastava (PW-6), who had medically examined the prosecutrix.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there
was no injury to any body part of the prosecutrix and there was no semen
detected on the body part of the victim. It has come on record that it was only
found on the panty and cover of Kathri. It is also submitted that the appellant is
a relative of the prosecutrix and he has been falsely implicated. The appellant is
in custody from 20.04.2019 to 11.01.2020 and, thereafter, from the date of
judgment i.e. 15.03.2021, till date. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant and to release him on bail.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State,
in his turn, submits that the appellant has not mentioned the provisions of the
Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is also submitted
that the act of the relative of the prosecutrix is very heinous in nature and,
therefore, no indulgence be shown in the matter.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the provisions contained in Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, so also the
relevant provisions of the IPC and the facts that appeal is going to take time and
appellant has already suffered incarceration for about 5 years, we are of the
considered opinion that this is a fit case to suspend the remaining jail sentence
of the appellant and to release him on bail. I.A.No.13275/2022 is accordingly
allowed.
It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited
and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on 19.12.2024 and
such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court, which shall not be more
than 2 times in a year, the execution of remaining part of the jail sentence
imposed upon appellant Tikku @ Tikaram Sen shall remain suspended and
he shall be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.13275/2022 is allowed & disposed of.
Let paper book be prepared and this case be listed for final hearing in
Part-B of the cause list as per its turn and seniority.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pp
