Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-7559-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7559 of 2024
(RAKESH PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 24-02-2025
Ms. Namrata K. Agrawal - Learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta - Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.15887/2024, an application under Section 5 of Limitation
Act for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3. The delay of 157 days in filing an appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
5. Also heard on I.A. No.15886/2024, first application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C read with Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
filed on behalf of the appellant.
6. This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 28.10.2023 passed by
Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) District Rewa (M.P.) in Special Sessions Case
No.32/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the following offences:
Fine Default (in
Conviction U/s Sentence
lieu of fine)
5 Years Rs.200/- 6 months
363 of IPC
R.I. R.I.
6 months
366 of IPC 5 Years R.I. Rs.200/-
R.I.
20 Years 6 months
5(L)/6 of POCSO Act Rs.200/-
R.I. R.I.
3(2)(5) of he Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Life 6 months
Rs.200/-
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 imprisonment R.I.
376(2)(n) of IPC Nil Nil Nil
2 CRA-7559-2024
7. The prosecution story found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is that
on 31.03.2022 the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful
guardianship of her parents without her consent from Rewa and took her to a
Hyderabad, where from 31.03.2022 to 08.04.2022 he committed sexual
intercourse with her repeatedly without her consent on the false pretext of
marriage. The prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and she belongs to the
Scheduled Caste community. On the basis of aforesaid guilt, the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.
8. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she went with the
appellant on her own will and stayed with him at Hyderabad for around four days.
She has further stated in her statement that she talked to her mother on phone and
when her mother assured that she will get her married with the appellant, then they
returned back to Rewa. Learned counsel further submitted that the age of the
prosecutrix is also disputed. There are two Scholar Registers exhibited by the
prosecution in evidence. The first one, Ex. P/10 is at the time of admission in
class-I, in which date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 20.09.2007. The
second one is Ex.P/14C, in which date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as
20.09.2005. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and
omissions in the statements of mother and father of the prosecutrix with regard to
the age of the prosecutrix. The appellant has suffered around two years of
incarceration. The appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no likelihood of early
hearing of this appeal, therefore the jail sentence of the appellant may be
suspended and he be released on bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed
3 CRA-7559-2024
the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that looking to the nature
of allegations and gravity of offence, the application is liable to be rejected.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the
present case appears to be a case of consensual sexual relationship, this Court
deems it appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and release him
on bail. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, I.A.
No.15886/2024 i s allowed. It is directed that substantive jail sentence of
appellant shall remain suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount (if not
already deposited) and on furnishing a 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 concerned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on
07.04.2025 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Court
concerned.
11. List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shanu
