Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh @ Golu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
1 CRA-1065-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1065 of 2025
(RAJESH @ GOLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 04-09-2025
Shri Kashi Ram Patel - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.5154/2025, which is an application for condonation
of delay.
It is submitted by learned counsel for present appellant that the present
appellant is in custody since 26.06.2018 and therefore, he could not file an
appeal before this Court. He has no financial means to engage any lawyer for
filing an appeal and to represent on behalf of him. In the year 2025, with the
free legal aid, he has filed this appeal, therefore, the delay occurred in filing
this appeal be condoned.
After hearing the learned counsel for present appellant, keeping in
view the long custody of appellant and his financial status, the application
for condonation of delay i.e. I.A. No.5154/2025 is allowed.
Also heard on admission.
Appeal appears to be involved arguable point, hence, admitted for
final hearing.
Further heard on I.A. No.5157/2025, first application under Section
430 of the BNSS, 2023/389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to appellant.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 26.06.2018 passed in
2 CRA-1065-2025
S.T. No.58/2017 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat,
Link Court Baihar (M.P.), whereby the present appellant has been convicted
under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offence Act and sentenced to undergo two years R.I.
with fine of Rs.1000/-, five years R.I. within fine of Rs.1000/-, ten years R.I.
with fine of Rs.10000/- and ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.10000/-, with
default stipulations.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the age
of the prosecutrix is not found to be less than 18 years. In this respect, the
learned trial Court's observation is erroneous. Smt. Aneeta (PW-3) though
has submitted scholar register and on the basis of scholar register she has
stated that on the date of offence, the prosecutrix was less than 18 years of
age, but there is no document in support of the scholar register on the basis
of which, her date of birth i.e. 22.07.1998 has been recorded. It is also
submitted that Smt. Aneeta (PW-3) in her cross-examination has stated that
no birth certificate has been attached with the scholar register and in general
the parents of prosecutrix have recorded her date of birth without there being
any cogent material. It is also submitted that keeping in view the fact that the
age of the prosecutrix is more than 18 years, it is a case of consensual
relationship. Therefore, prayer for suspension of sentence has been made on
behalf of present appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application
on the ground that the prosecution has established its case on cogent basis.
There is no material on record which may gather a ground to the present
3 CRA-1065-2025
appellant for suspension of sentence.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the determination of age by the
learned trial Court, which is based on the evidence available on record. The
testimony of Smt. Aneeta (PW-3) does not appear to be doubtful or
untrustworthy. Relying upon the statements of the prosecutrix, her parents,
and PW-3, the age of the prosecutrix has been duly established to be below
18 years. Accordingly, the principal contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected.
Keeping in view the evidence and material available on record and the
attending facts and circumstances of the present case, but without
commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that
this is not a fit case in which the present appellant can be given the benefit of
suspension of sentence at this stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No.5157/2025 is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
