Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
1 CRA-11988-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11988 of 2024
(SONU KOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 14-02-2025
Mr. L.P. Singh - Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Sunita Sood - Panel Lawyer for State.
Mr. Rangdev Singh Parihar - Advocate for objector.
I.A. No.2400 of 2025 is an application for taking document on record.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.2400 of 2025 is
allowed and the aforesaid documents are taken on record.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
I.A. No.28246 of 2024 is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated
03.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Mauganj, District-Rewa (M.P.) in SC No.17 of 2020
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years with
fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act with default stipulations.
Victim is present before this Court and she has no objection if the
application will be allowed. From the cohabitation of the accused and the victim,
they have two daughters and both were residing as husband and wife and if the bail
is not granted then no one is available to take care and nourish the children.
2 CRA-11988-2024
It is submitted that as per the prosecution evidence, the prosecution failed to
prove that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and mother of the victim
(P.W-4) has stated that she was married prior to 40 years when her statement was
recorded and she has also stated that with the gap of 03-04 years, the son/daughter
was born. The victim is her youngest daughter and she has failed to state exact
date of birth of the victim. Father of the victim (P.W-3) has also stated that he is
not knowing the date of birth of the victim. He is also not knowing the date of his
marriage and the date when the first child was born. He has not got prepared the
birth certificate or Janma Patrika and he is unable to disclose in which year the
victim was born and has stated that the Aadhar Card was prepared and he is unable
to explain on what basis, date of birth in Aadhar Card is mentioned.
Learned counsel for the appellant reading the testimony of Dr. Vikash
Kumar Singh (PW-9) has stated that no full body examination of joints was
conducted by the doctor but only on the basis of examination of teeth, he has
opined that the victim was more than 16 years. In the cross-examination, he has
also admitted that there is two years difference in the cases of determination of age
by examination of teeth and has also stated that in the teeth examination and as per
the latest literature there is a difference of six months not of two years and on that
basis the substantial jail sentence of the appellant be suspended and the applicant
be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the objector/victim has supported that the appellant and
the victim were residing jointly as husband and wife, hence, the appellant be
released on bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the ground
that the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence has convicted the appellant.
No scope for interference is made out. Hence, I.A. No.28246 of 2024 be
3 CRA-11988-2024
dismissed.
Heard the parties and perused the record.
In this case, the age of the victim is disputed that and looking to the facts
and circumstances, this Court is satisfied to suspend the substantial jail sentence,
but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to
suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.28246 of 2024 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, it is directed
that he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction to appear
before the concerning trial Court on 16.07.2025 and also on such other dates, as
may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
The trial Court shall not fix more than two dates in a year for his appearance till
the final disposal of appeal.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
julie
