Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nathulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025
1 CRA-11900-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 11900 of 2024
(NATHULAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 22-04-2025
Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri H.S.Rathore, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Ankit Verma, learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant.
Per Justice Gajendra Singh:
I.A.No.521/2025 is preferred by appellant No.1 Nathulal and
appellant No.2Smt.Guddibai for suspension of execution of sentence.
Both the appellants have been convicted under section 366A r/w section
109 of the IPC and section 4 r/w section 3 r/w section 17 of the POCSO
Act, 2012 and have been sentenced for 3 years RI and 20 years RI and
fine with default stipulation vide judgment dated 04.10.2024 in Special
Sessions Case No.269/2022 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge and
Special Judge for trial of POCSO Act, 2012.
Prosecution case in brief is that present appellants and their son
(appellant in separate appeal) were tenants of the house belonging to the
father of child victim (PW/1) born on 01.10.2008 and a student of class
9 and aged 13 years 11 months at the time of incident dated 23.07.2022.
Son of appellant kissed the victim (PW/1) and she complained to the
family members and thereafter the appellants along with their son were
2 CRA-11900-2024
evicted from the rented accommodation. Thereafter they arranged
another accommodation in the same locality but in another lane where
the victim used to go her school. On 23.07.2022 appellants' son asked
the victim to marry him and took her to their house where the present
appellants also insisted the victim to marry with their son. Under their
influence the victim also agreed for the proposal and the present
appellants asked the victim to leave the home and come with their son in
their village with instruction that they will reach there thereafter. The
victim (PW/1) and appellants' son reached their house situated at village
Khera, Ashok Nagar. In the morning of 24.07.2022 appellants reached
there prior to the victim (PW/1) and asked the victim to marry with their
son and appellants' son slept with the victim and committed penetrative
sexual assault with her. On 26.07.2022 police officials came to the
house of appellants then appellants and their son took the victim and
shifted her at a distance of 10 to 12 kms. to the house of her daughter
from where the victim was recovered.
This application has been preferred on the ground that there is no
specific overt act committed by the present appellants. They never
instigated or abetted the prosecutrix to run away with their son. The age
of the prosecutrix is not proved. The medical report does not
corroborate that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault as there
was no injury over the body of the prosecutrix. There are many
contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses.
3 CRA-11900-2024
The prosecutrix was a consented party. She herself accompanied their
son. Being the parents of the co-accused, they have been falsely
implicated. Accordingly, prayed for suspension of sentence.
Counsel appeared for the complainant expressed no objection but
counsel for the State opposed the application submitting that age of
appellant No.1 Nathulal has been incorrectly mentioned as 67 years
because his date of birth is 01.01.1968. Their act constitutes abetment.
The victim is below 14 years and till now she has not completed 18
years. These appellants were extended the benefit of bail during trial but
they misused the liberty and remained absent. Their trial was separated.
If the sentence is suspended then they will again misuse the liberty.
Their period of custody is not sufficient.
Heard. Perused the record.
Considering the statement of the victim (PW/1) and medical
officer Dr.Vrinda Rathi (PW/6), para-54 of the judgment and the age of
the victim (PW/1), we are not inclined to suspend the sentence passed
against the appellants at present. Accordingly, I.A.No.521/2025 is
rejected.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/
