Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramashankar Vaishya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 13312 of 2023
(RAMASHANKAR VAISHYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 29-05-2024
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for respondent -
State.
Heard on I.A.No.7523/2024, which is an application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant -
Ramashankar Vaishya.
Appellant-Ramashankar Vaishya, is aggrieved of the judgment dated
06.10.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, District Sidhi (M.P.), in SCATR/99/2020, whereby, appellant
has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, Section
376 of IPC he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.5000/-, and Section 3(1)(W-i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he is
sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-, with default
stipulation.
It is submitted that prosecutrix is major. She was in consensual
relationship with the present appellant for last five years. When appellant
refused to marry, then she lodged a report. It is also submitted that a
consensual relationship has been converted into one having overtones of
violation of the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(W)(i) and Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 376(2)(N) IPC.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer
of the appellant and submits that appellant is a Police Personnel. He has
misused his dominant position to allure the prosecutrix for physical relationship,
if he opposes the prayer.
She has admitted that they were having love relationship and on the basis
of which they had entered into physical relationship. She has admitted that
whenever she used to ask the appellant to marry her, he used to deny saying
that she belongs to a different community. There is allegation that on
22.01.2020, appellant had misbehaved with her and had broken her mobile
phone. She lodged a report on 08.07.2020 i.e. after more than six months of
the denial of the appellant to marry her.
Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [(2019) 18 SCC 191], wherein, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has distinguished rape or consensual sex. It is held that "if there is a
consensual involvement in sexual intercourse by victim without there being
any misconception created by accused, does not constitute rape. It is the duty
of the courts, in case of sexual relationship arising out of alleged false
promise to marry."
Similarly, in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another [(2019) 9 SCC 608], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "consent
with respect to Section 375, involves active understanding of circumstances,
actions and consequences of proposed act. Individual who makes a reasoned
choice to act after evaluating alternative actions (or inaction) as well as
various possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction, consents
to such action."
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that for more than five years, prosecutrix was in relationship
with the appellant. Prosecutrix is major at the time of lodging of the report, she
has mentioned her age as 26 years. Thus, from the date of start of the
relationship, she was major.
Taking into consideration the fact that the relationship was consensual,
there was no exploitation on the basis of the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to
tribal community, 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
18.12.2024 and such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court, the
execution of remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon Appellant -
Ramashankar Vaishya shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail
till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.7523/2024, is allowed & disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
