Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pragya Prateek Shukla vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2022

Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 710/2021

(1) Pragya Prateek Shukla S/o Sh. Shyam Prakash, age About 39 Years (2) Priya Shukla W/o Sh. Pragya Prateek Shukla, age 33 years

Both the appellants are residents of Nagesh (E), Police Station Sadar, Tehsil and District Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh)

(Presently Lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, through VC Ms. Disha Wadekar and Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, for the complainant, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

12/01/2022

The instant application for suspension of sentence

under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-applicants (1) Pragya Prateek Shukla S/o Shyam

Prakash and (2) Priya Shukla W/o Pragya Prateek Shukla, who

have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment

dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO

Act Cases and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act,

2005, Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.68/2018 :

Offence for which Sentence and fine awarded convicted

(2 of 7) [SOSA-710/2021]

Section 305 IPC Six years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment Section 21 of the POCSO Act One year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment Section 3(2)(vi) of the SC/ST Two years' rigorous imprisonment Act alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment

Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the

application for suspension of sentence.

Learned counsel Mr. Vineet Jain, representing the

appellant-applicants, vehemently and fervently contends that the

conviction of the appellant-applicants as recorded by the trial

court for the above offences is absolutely unwarranted. The

allegation set out in the FIR (Ex.P/2) that the appellant Priya

Shukla pushed the victim Mst. 'D' into the room of the PTI

Vijendra Singh was not found proved by the trial court vide

findings recorded in para No.94 of the impugned judgment. The

trial court convicted the appellants by recording a finding that the

appellants herein abetted the victim to commit suicide. In this

regard, the trial court relied upon the letters Ex.P/55 and Ex.P/56

written by the accused Vijendra Singh and the deceased

respectively. Mr. Jain submits that the appellant Pragya Prateek

Shukla was working as a Faculty Member in the BSTC college

whereas, the appellant Priya Shukla was the Warden in the hostel,

where the deceased was staying as a boarder. She had just

returned from her village. The other girls in the hostel informed

(3 of 7) [SOSA-710/2021]

the appellant Pragya regarding the victim having gone missing, on

which, an extensive search was made in presence of the other

girls staying in the hostel and the nurse. Ultimately, the victim

was found present inside the room of the PTI Vijendra Singh. In

this background, it was absolutely natural for the persons incharge

to have made enquiries to find out the reason for this unnatural

behaviour and in this process, the letters Ex.P/55 and Ex.P/56

were voluntarily written by the co-accused Vijendra Singh and the

victim. There is no element of confession/admission in either of

these letters and thus, it cannot be held that the appellants herein

coerced the victim to write a confessional letter, which can be

considered as a circumstance which instigated the girl to commit

suicide. Mr. Jain further submitted that as the incident took place

in the odd hours of the night, it would be too harsh to expect that

the appellants would immediately realize that the victim was a

minor and thus, the matter should be forthwith reported to the

authorities. Neither the victim nor the co-accused Vijendra Singh

made any disclosure regarding having indulged in any sexual

relations and thus, they were simply advised in routine to write

down the gist of the circumstances in which they were found

together and in this process, the letters Ex.P/55 and Ex.P/56 were

voluntarily written by the co-accused Vijendra Singh and the

victim Mst. 'D' and as such, conviction of the appellants for the

offences punishable under Section 305 IPC and Section 21 of the

POCSO Act is totally unjustified. Mr. Jain further submits that

after the process of bonafide enquiry had been completed, the

victim went back to sleep in her room. In the morning, she woke

up and then jumped into the water body, thereby ending her life.

There is no evidence to show that the appellants were in contact

(4 of 7) [SOSA-710/2021]

with the victim during this period. There is no evidence to show

that the appellants were conscious of the fact that the girl was

minor on the date of incident. He further contended that the

appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not

misuse the liberty so granted to them. Hearing of the appeal is

bound to consume time. On these grounds, Mr. Jain implored the

court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and

direct enlargement of the appellants on bail during the pendency

of the appeal.

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. J.S.

Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Disha Wadekar and Mr. Shreyansh

Mardia, representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently

opposed the submissions of Mr. Jain and contended that the

appellants were in a position of power. No sooner the minor

victim was found in the room of the PTI Vijendra Singh, the

appellants should have reported the matter to the police, rather

than taking the things in their own hands. The victim was

pressurized/coerced to write the confession/admission (Ex.P/56).

They further urged that rather than making an enquiry from the

victim on their own, the appellants were under a lawful obligation

to forthwith report the matter to the police because a minor girl

staying in the hostel was found in the room of the PTI. By failing

to do so, the appellants acted in gross contravention of the

procedure provided under Chapter V of the POCSO Act. In

extracting the confession Ex.P/56, the appellants coerced the girl

to such an extent that she was left with only two options, either to

have her image tarnished in the eyes of the society or to end her

own life. The minor girl became disconsolate and took the

extreme step of ending her life. Thus, the appellants were rightly

(5 of 7) [SOSA-710/2021]

held responsible for instigating the victim to commit suicide. They

thus, urged that the appellants do not deserve indulgence of bail

in this case.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record. It would be premature for this Court to

record any opinion on the issue whether or not the appellants

were aware regarding the victim being below 18 years of age, as it

would be subject matter of extensive appreciation of evidence and

any observation by this court on this aspect of the case at this

stage may prejudice the outcome of the appeal. However, the fact

remains that the absence of the victim in the dormitory was

reported to the appellant Priya Shukla, the hostel warden,

whereafter, a search was made in the natural course of events and

the girl was found inside the room of the PTI Vijendra Singh with

the door bolted. We are of the view that there was nothing

abnormal/unnatural for the hostel warden and her husband, a

teacher in the college, in which, the victim was studying to have

made enquiries as to the circumstances in which, the girl had

been found inside the room of the PTI in the dead of the night. It

appears that at that stage, neither the co-accused Vijendra Singh

nor the girl made any admission regarding they being involved in

any kind of sexual relations. Prime facie, other than an admission

that she was wrong in going to the room of the PTI Vijendra

Singh, there is hardly anything in the letter Ex.P/56, which can be

considered enough to brand it to be an admission by the victim.

In this background, we are of the firm view that the applicants

have an arguable case that they did not pressurize the girl nor did

they try to extract any confession/admission from her. Whether or

(6 of 7) [SOSA-710/2021]

not the circumstances, which came to light in the dead of the

night on 29.03.2016 warranted immediate reporting of the matter

to the police would also require elaborate consideration at the

stage of final disposal of the appeal. Incidents are not uncommon

where after deliberations, it is decided in a bonafide manner not to

report such matters to the police, lest the reputation of the girl is

tarnished. This aspect gains more importance because the hostel

warden/higher ups would definitely have preferred to deliberate

with the parents of the girl before taking any such action.

The appellants were on bail during the course of trial.

There is no allegation whatsoever that they misused the liberty so

granted to them by the court during the course of the trial or that

they might do so if released on bail during pendency of the

appeal. There is no likelihood of the appellants absconding in the

event of their being released on bail. Hearing of the appeal is

bound to consume time.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of

the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view

that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-

applicants by suspending the sentences awarded to them by the

trial court during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences

filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases

and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005,

Cases, Bikaner vide judgment dated 08.10.2021 in Sessions Case

No.68/2018 against the appellant-applicants (1) Pragya Prateek

Shukla S/o Shyam Prakash and (2) Priya Shukla W/o Pragya

Prateek Shukla shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

(7 of 7) [SOSA-710/2021]

aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each

of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on

14.02.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the

appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if any of the applicant changes the place of residence, he/she will give in writing his/her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.