Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kumar Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-7993-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7993 of 2024
(RAVI KUMAR RAIKWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 24-02-2025
Shri R.B. Gautam - learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - learned Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Ms. Papiya Das - learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Objector.
Heard on IA No.1780/2025, which is first application filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf
of appellant- Ravi Kumar Raikwar.
Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under
Section 363 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 and
sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and
under Sections 5(L)/6 and 5(J)(ii)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (included under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(m) of
IPC) and sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years and to pay fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 (included under
Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989) and sentenced to life imprisonment
and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-for each offence respectively with usual default
stipulation vide judgment dated 30/05/2024 passed by Special Judge, Exclusive
Special Court (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) and
(SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989), Betul District Betul in Special Case No. 27/2021.
Prosecution story found to be proved is that on 16/04/2021,
complainant/mother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report of her daughter.
2 CRA-7993-2024
During investigation, on 25/05/2021, prosecutrix was recovered and in her
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she disclosed that despite having
knowledge that the prosecutrix belongs to SC/ST community, appellant abducted
the minor prosecutrix from lawful guardianship of her parents and committed
sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of aforesaid, alleged offence has been
registered against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and
she has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. Missing report as well as
FIR has been lodged after inordinate delay and no plausible explanation has been
offered by the prosecution in this regard. Age of the prosecutrix is disputed. DNA
report is also found to be negative. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix had
gone with the appellant on her own volition and remained in his company for
considerable time and travelled through various means of public transport, during
which neither she raised any alarm nor tried to escape away from the company of
the appellant, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party. She made
physical relationship with the appellant on her own accord. Hence, there is no
evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged
offence. There are fair chances of the success of this appeal and if the custodial
sentence of the appellant is not suspended, then the purpose for filing this appeal
will get frustrated. There is no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in near
future. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays for
suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State as well as learned
counsel for the respondent No.2/Objector has opposed the application by
contending that there is ample evidence available on record to connect the
appellant with the alleged offence, therefore, at this stage no case for suspension
3 CRA-7993-2024
of custodial sentence and grant of bail to the appellant is not made out.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case coupled with
the fact that there is inordinate delay in lodging the missing report and FIR and
age of the prosecutrix is disputeed and she remained with the appellant foe
considerable time, during which neither she raised any alarm nor tried to escape
from the company of the appellant, but without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, IA No. 1780/2025 is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if already not
deposited, the substantive jail sentence of appellant- Ravi Kumar Raikwar shall
remain suspended till the final disposal of the appeal and he be released on bail, on
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the
concerned trial Court firstly on 21.04.2025 and on such other dates, as may be
fixed by the said Court in this regard.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
skt
