Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 CRA-5098-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5098 of 2019
(SUBHASH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 31-01-2025
Shri Shreyash Pandit- Learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Shweta Yadav- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.295/2025, which is second application under Section
389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of sole appellant - Subhash.
His first bail applications for suspension of sentence has been
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2021.
The appellant has been convicted by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012, District Burhanpur in Special Case
No.19/2015 vide judgment dated 10.05.2019 for the offences under Sections
376(2)(n), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i) and under Section 506 Part-II of IPC and
under Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO, Act and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.10,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and R.I. for two
years respectively with default stipulations.
The prosecution story found to be proved in short is that appellant took
the prosecutrix (P.W.2) at Gulabganj, Lalbag and Coronation Market,
Burhanpur and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly
on minor prosecutrix (P.W.2) from the year 2011 to 2014 without her
consent by threatening her to kill and he again committed aggravated
2 CRA-5098-2019
penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on minor prosecutrix (P.W.-3) from the
year 2013-14 without her consent by threatening her to kill. On the basis of
aforesaid finding of guilt, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for
the offence, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has been falsely
implicated in the case. It is further submitted the FIR has been lodged with a
delay of more than three years and there is no explanation for the delay. As
per the MLC report, no internal or external injuries were found on the body
of both the prosecutrix. The prosecutrixs had never raised any alarm or
objection during the aforesaid period which shows that they were consenting
party. There is no cogent evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix.
No DNA has been conducted by the prosecution. The appellant has already
suffered more than 9 years and 10 months of incarceration. There are
omissions and contradictions in the statement of material witnesses. There is
no likelihood of early hearing of this appeal in near future. He is ready to
furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions,
which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application
for suspension of sentence may be allowed.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence by contending
that at the time of alleged incident, both the prosecutrixs were minor,
therefore, her consent is immaterial. Looking to the nature of allegations and
gravity of offence, the application for suspension of sentence deserves to be
dismissed.
3 CRA-5098-2019
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case
coupled with the fact that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of more than
three years and considering the custody period of the appellant, the
application for suspension of sentence deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,
I.A. No.295/2025, is allowed.
It is directed that substantive jail sentence of appellant - Subhash 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 17.03.2025 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the Court concerned in this behalf.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
AL
