Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3061 MP
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2025
1 CRA-15030-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 15030 of 2023
(POOJA ROY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 20-01-2025
Shri Kuldeep Singh - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Per Smt. Justice Anuradha Shukla Heard on I.A.No.2606/2024, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of
jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of sole appellant - Pooja Roy .
The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & 366A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Sections 376(2) N/109 & Section 16 R/w section 17 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and Section 5-L/16 of POCSO Act with no separate sentence with default stipulations, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2023 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) in S.C. No.2/2021.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He also submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence. It is argued that the testimony of prosecutrix is not credible on the fact of her recovery from the house of co-convict Vijay; her age was
2 CRA-15030-2023 not proved according to the legal parameters as the scholar register entry of school relates to Class IX and ossification test report has no legal acceptance in the absence of date of birth entry classified in Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It has also been argued that the scholar register entry was not duly proved by the teacher and the mother of the prosecutrix; further the statements of prosecutrix are full of contradictions as she failed to give any incriminating testimony against the main offender. The appeal would take considerable time to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that till disposal of this appeal, execution of jail sentences awarded to the appellant under the impugned judgment deserve to be suspended. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and she shall be released on bail for securing her presence before the trial Court concerned on 21.04.2025 and on such other dates as may be
3 CRA-15030-2023 fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. List for final hearing alongwith Cr.A. No.15113/2023.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE JUDGE rv
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!