Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-13223-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 13223 of 2024
(CHANDAN DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 10-02-2025
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State.
Ms. Arti Anuragi - Advocate for the complainant.
I.A. No.2734/2025, an application for change of counsel is heard,
considered and allowed.
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate and his associates are permitted the
contest the case on behalf of the appellant.
I.A. is closed.
I.A. No.3100/2025, an application under Section 338(2) of BNSS is
heard, considered and allowed.
Ms. Arti Anuragi and her associates are permitted the assist the Public
Prosecutor.
I.A. is closed.
Also heard on I.A.No2744/2025, first application under Section 430(1)
of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant-Chandan Dhakad.
The appellant stood convicted under Section 342 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo 01 year RI, Section 3/4 of POCSO and sentenced to undergo 12
years' RI with fine of Rs.4,000/- and Section 506(2) of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 02 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation
2 CRA-13223-2024
respectively vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
12/11/2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shivpuri in S.T.
No.29/203.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial
Court erred in convicting and awarding jail sentence to the appellant. It is
further submitted that DNA report is negative and MLC report does not
disclose any injury over the person of the prosecurix. Even otherwise,
appellant is uncle (Tau Ji) of prosecturix, who happens to be 17 years of age
at the relevant point of time. Due to some path way related dispute, this false
allegation had been levelled against the present appellant. That apart, FIR is
delayed by seven days. Even the prosecution story indicates improbability
because when prosecutrix herself has Tap in her house then she was not
required to visit appellant's house to get the water from the Tap placed in the
house of the appellant. Sufficient contradictions and omissions surfaced in
the testimony of the prosecutrix, her father (PW-2) and other witnesses.
Besides that, appellant is aged about 47 years and has so far suffered around
3 months' incarceration as pre and post trial detention. Appellant has good
case on merits and final hearing of appeal would take some time. Appellant
is ready to abide by all such terms and conditions in case he is enlarged on
bail. Under such circumstances, appellant prays for suspension of sentence.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ State as well as complainant
opposed the application and prayed for its dismissal.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting
3 CRA-13223-2024
on the merits of the case, this Court intends to allow the application for
suspension of sentence (I.A.No.2744/2025). If appellant furnishes bail bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with one
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he
shall appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 17/03/2025 and
thereafter, on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Office for
appearance, then he shall be released on bail and his execution of jail
sentence is suspended till disposal of this appeal, subject to deposit of fine
amount.
I.A.No.2744/2025 stands allowed and disposed of, accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
VC
