[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Juber @ Jubed Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2026
1 CRA-11252-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11252 of 2022
(JUBER @ JUBED KHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 26-02-2026
Shri Sourabh Singh Thakur - Advocate for appellants.
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. G.A. for State.
Heard on I.A. No.7581/2025, first application under Section 430 of BNSS /
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant
No.1/Juber @ Jubed Khan.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 16.11.2022 passed in ST
No.84/2020 by the Special Sessions Judge, Gauharganj, District Raisen, whereby
present appellants has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned therein.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of present appellant
that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age at the time of incident as
alleged by the prosecution. The prosecutrix (PW-1) in paragraph-4 of her cross-
examination has admitted that she mentioned her date of birth on the basis of date
of birth mentioned in the Aadhar card. The father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) in his
cross-examination has admitted that he has recorded the date of the birth of the
prosecutrix approximately in the school. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3)
has also admitted in her cross-examination that she has no knowledge whether the
date of birth of the prosecutrix has been intimated to the Gram Kotwar or not.
Scholar register has been submitted by Ramkripal Dubey (PW-5). Though he has
stated that as per school record and scholar register, the date of the birth of the
prosecutrix is 13.08.1999. He has also admitted that the date of birth is recorded
on the oral information given by the father of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the age
2 CRA-11252-2022
of the prosecutrix is not found to be proved or less than 18 years at the time of
incident. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as per the
statement of the prosecutrix, it is revealed that she remained for two years with the
present appellant as his wife and if there is any forceful act by the appellant, she
could lodge a report in the police station or to inform any person residing in
neighbour, but that has not been done. The co-accused is the wife of the present
appellant, whose sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dated
13.03.2025. The present appellant has suffered 2 years, 9 months and day, in
incarceration without remissions as on 17.08.2025 and thereafter around six more
months have been elapsed. It is further submitted that present appellant has a
good case on merit. He has no criminal antecedents. The appellant is ready to
comply with the conditions as may be imposed by the Court. The final disposal of
this appeal will take considerable time. Therefore, it is prayed that the remaining
jail sentence of present appellant may be suspended and he may be released on
bail.
Per contra , learned counsel for State has opposed the application on the
ground that the age of the prosecutrix is proved that it was 13.08.1999. It has been
got established by the statement of the prosecutrix and their parents as well as by
scholar register and the statement of PW-5. As far as other allegations are
concerned, since the prosecutrix was minor, therefore, the consensual act on
behalf of the prosecutrix cannot be assumed the case of prosecution is on cogent
basis. In view of the aforesaid submissions, its prayed that the application be
rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record,
this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of suspension of sentence to the
present appellant.
3 CRA-11252-2022
At this stage, a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence is neither warranted
nor permissible. Prima facie , the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been
consistently recorded as 13.08.1999 in the school records and the scholar register,
duly proved by PW-5, and stands corroborated by the statements of the
prosecutrix and her parents. Merely because the entry was made on the basis of
information furnished by the father would not, at this juncture, render the said
evidence unreliable. Thus, there appears sufficient material on record to indicate
that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.
Insofar as the contention regarding alleged consent is concerned, since the
prosecutrix was a minor, any purported consent on her part would be of no legal
consequence. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant pertain to
appreciation of evidence, which shall be examined at the stage of final hearing of
the appeal.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the findings recorded by
the learned trial Court, and the material available on record, this Court does not
find it to be a fit case for suspension of the remaining jail sentence at this stage.
Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I.A.
No.7581/2025 is rejected.
List for final hearing in due course.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
