Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Alias Deepu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-9580-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9580 of 2024
(DEEPAK ALIAS DEEPU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 22-01-2025
Shri Sandeep Mahawar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Shri Pradeep Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the Objector.
Heard on admission and perused the record.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.20288/2024, which is first application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C./Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
the appellant Deepak @ Deepu.
Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section
363 of the I.P.C., Sections 6 in violation of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and
5(L) of the POCSO Act and Section 6 in violation of Section 5j(ii) of the
POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-
, R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 20 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations, vide judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Special
Judge (POCSO Act) Harsud, District Khandwa, in S.C. No.21/2020.
The prosecution story found to be proved is that the appellant-accused
kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful custody of her guardianship and
2 CRA-9580-2024
forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. On the basis of
aforesaid guilt, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as mentioned
above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix was
having love affair and eloped with the appellant on her own will. It is further
submitted that she was a consenting party to the sexual relationship. As per
the findings of the trial Court the age of the prosecutrix was 17 years and 5
months at the time of the incident. The prosecutrix has married with the
appellant and two children have born out of the said wedlock. As per the
FSL report (Exh.P/24), the DNA profile of the appellant matched with the
DNA profile of child Riya (first child of the prosecutrix). The appellant has
also filed the birth certificate of second child in which the name of appellant
is mentioned as father of the child. Thus, it is proved that appellant is the
biological father of both the children. Learned counsel further contended that
the appellant is in custody since 29.07.2024 and he was on bail during trial.
The appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no likelihood of early hearing of
this appeal, therefore, jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he
be released on bail.
Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed
the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that looking to the
nature of offence and gravity of evidence the application be rejected.
Learned counsel for the Objector fairly submitted that he has no
objection if the bail is granted to the appellant.
3 CRA-9580-2024
Having heard the arguments of the parties and the fact that the
prosecutrix has married with the appellant and have two children from the
appellant, we deem it appropriate to suspend the jail sentence of
appellant and to release him on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the
merits of the case, I.A. No. 20288/2024 is allowed. It is directed that
substantive jail sentence of appellant- Deepak @ Deepu 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
28.02.2025 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Court
concerned in this behalf.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ak
