Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 CRA-4221-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 4221 of 2025
(VIKAS PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 25-06-2025
Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma - Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Public Prosecutor for State.
Heard on IA No.9767 of 2025 , which is the first application under
Section 430(1) of BNSS, 2023 [Section 389 (1) of CrPC] moved on behalf of
appellant- Vikas Prajapati for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2025
passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012 and 13 th Additional Sessions
Judge, Gwalior in SC No.62/2023, appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
CONVICTION OFFENCE
10 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine,
Section 366 of IPC
further one month's RI
1 year RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine,
Section 323 of IPC
further one month's RI
Section 376 (2)(n) 20 years' of RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine,
of IPC further one month's RI
Section 376 (3) of 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine,
IPC further one month's RI
Section 5L/6 of 20 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in lieu of fine,
POCSO Act further one month's RI
Since Sections 376 (2)(n), 376(3) and Section 3/4(2) and 5L/6 of
POCSO Act provide for the same punishment, therefore, without giving any
alternative punishment as per Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the accused has
been convicted equally for the all the offences.
2 CRA-4221-2025
The allegation against the present appellant is of kidnapping and
taking away the minor victim girl, who is below 16 years of age, belonging
to Scheduled Caste without her consent from lawful guardianship of parents,
with intent to marry or have illicit sexual intercourse with her many times
from 2021 to 02.05.2022 and voluntarily causing hurt and criminal
intimidation by threatening to kill her by keeping in illegal confinement for
more than ten days and trafficking her by transporting for the purpose of
sexual exploitation and keeping with himself for the purpose of sexual
assault.
It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant only on the basis of statement of single
witness i.e. victim. Apart from this, no other witness has supported the
prosecution version. There are material contradictions and omissions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. No relevant document regarding
determination of age of victim girl has been produced on behalf of the
prosecution. It is submitted that the victim girl has been found to be more
than 17 years and less than 18 years of age as per medical examination.
Appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so
granted to him. Under these circumstances, he prayed for suspension of jail
sentence and grant of bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State is vehemently opposed
the contentions of counsel for appellant and submitted that age of victim girl
has been rightly determined by the trial Court and prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt in order to prove that age of victim girl is less
3 CRA-4221-2025
than 16 years on the first date of incident. Considering the gravity of offence,
appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of suspension of jail sentence.
Hence, prayed for rejection of application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as
the impugned judgment.
Considering the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the evidence of victim (PW-12) as well as the statements of other
persecution witnesses, so also the nature of offence and the manner in which,
the alleged offence was committed by the appellant with the victim girl, no
case is made out for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. stands rejected.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
*AVI*
