Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Panika (Sonwani) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-2668-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2668 of 2024
(RAJKUMAR PANIKA (SONWANI) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 07-02-2025
Shri Himanshu Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Shivshankar Rathour - Advocate for the objector.
Heard on I.A. No.5115/2024, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant - Rajkumar Panika (Sonwani).
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.01.2024
passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Shahdol, Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) in
Sessions Trial No.284/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, Section
5(G)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and Sections 376(2)(n) & 376(D) of IPC with no separate
sentence, with default stipulations.
It is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant is innocent. A
case of consent has been converted into that of violation of privacy.
Maternal grandmother (PW-2) of the prosecutrix has admitted in her cross-
examination that her age as 16 years has been given by estimation. Mother
(PW-3) has also admitted that prosecutrix had not called her and had not
2 CRA-2668-2024
given her any information about the incident. She admitted that incident
came to her knowledge at the instance of mother and the prosecutrix.
Reading from the evidence of Dr. Mamta Jagat Pal (PW-6), it is submitted
that there were no injury marks found on the private part and other parts of
the body. Secondary sexual characters of the victim were fully developed.
No definite opinion was given. Hymen of the victim was old torn and
healed. Reading from the evidence of school teacher Bhagwan Das Prajapti
(PW-7), it is pointed out that Bhagwan Das Prajapati has admitted in his
cross-examination that no documentary evidence in regard to date of birth of
the prosecutrix was ever produced and in rural milieu date of birth is
recorded as per the estimation. Taking into consideration the physical
parameters of his student, he admitted that admission form of the prosecutrix
was not produced before the Court. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix is
now the married wife of appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that there are
good chances of success in this appeal. Hence, prayer is made to suspend
the sentence of the appellant and grant him bail.
Learned Government Advocate for respondent-State opposes the
prayer.
Shri Shivshankar Rathour, learned counsel for the objector supports
the case of the appellant, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the
case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.5115/2024 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited
3 CRA-2668-2024
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
concerned on 02.04.2025 and such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial
Court, the execution of remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon
appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail till final disposal
of this appeal.
I.A. No.25802/2024, an application for urgent hearing is disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sjk
