Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lodha@ Veersingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4653 of 2024
(LODHA@ VEERSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 29-05-2024
Shri Sudeel Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri G S Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.5867/2024 an application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C.for suspension of execution of sentence appellant and enlargement on
bail.
3. The appellant- Loda @ Veer Singh has been convicted under Section
363, 366 , 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 6 read with section 5(j) (ii) of
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to
undergo 3 years R.I., 5 years R.I. and 20 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-,
Rs.2000/- and Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation in Special Case No.12/2023 by
Special Judge, designated under Protection of Children From Sexual Offence
Act, 2012, District Dhar vide judgment dated 01.03.2024.
4. As per prosecution story, the appellant/accused has kidnapped the
child/victim on 10.03.2020 and committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly
till 09.03.2023, when the victim was recovered from the custody of appellant in
Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar vide Ex.P/1 and make pregnant as
consequence of sexual assault.
5. This application has been preferred on the ground that the Trial Court
has committed error in determining the age of victim (PW-1) below 18 years
whereas the victim was above 18 years and victim had solemnized the marriage
with the appellant. The physical relation made by appellant and victim was
consensual, when the couple came back from Gujarat to celebrate the Holy
Festival then the family members of the victim caught hold them and handed
over to the Police and falsely implicated the appellant in this case.
6. Notice of the application was served to the victim but no one marked
his presence on behalf of victim.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the application by filing reply vide
document No.4008/2024 referring para 21, 23, 24, 38, 46, 47 and 49 of the
impugned judgment and also referring the gravity of offence, nature of crime
and age of victim. It is also submitted that if the remaining sentence of the
appellant is suspended then there is every possibility of the appellant indulging
in further crime and also harassing the victim.
We have perused the judgment and record available with the file.
8. The Trial Court has determined the age of victim as 17 years on
10.03.2020. There is no material enumerated under Section 94 (2) of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and no ossification test and
other latest medical test was conducted. Considering the testimony of father
(PW-2) of victim and testimony of mother (PW-3) of the victim and para 4 to 7
of the testimony of victim (PW-1) in which victim has stated nature of relation
with the appellant/accused, 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.5867/2024 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.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
