Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Sahu @ Rinkoo Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2020
Author: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
Bench: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
1 CRA-9006-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-9006-2018
(RAHUL SAHU @ RINKOO SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
9
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-01-2020
Shri B.K. Rajak, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashok Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on this second application i.e. I.A. No.17629/2019 under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Rahul Sahu @ Rinku Sahu.
His earlier first application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court with liberty to renew the prayer after six months vide order dated 15.03.2019.
T h e appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years along with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,500/-, with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. She was consenting party. Learned trial Court failed to conclude the prosecutrix minor. The conclusion of the trial Court is based on the entry in the school record.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed a copy of judgment passed by this Court dated 31.08.2017 and submits that Division Bench of this Court in case of Rabiya Bano Vs. Rashid Khan passed in M.Cr.C. No.7959/2017 has categorically stated that the entry made in the school record is not a conclusive evidence, cannot be believed. The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal; therefore, it has been prayed that jail sentence of the Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 30/01/2020 15:00:05 2 CRA-9006-2018 appellant may be suspended.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submits that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. She was below the age of 18 years and factum is well supported by the evidence of the prosecutrix and Doctor; therefore, he prays to dismiss this application.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Division Bench of this Court in para 15 of aforesaid judgment has considered the delay in filing the FIR.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, she categorically in her statement stated that the appellant took her forcibly in his room and locked inside. He beat her and forcibly committed rape upon her. He threatened her that if she narrates this story to anyone then he will kill her and went outside of the room. When mother of the prosecutrix came, she narrated the whole story to her mother. Thereafter, she lodged the report along with her mother. Act of rape is supported by Doctor Malti Uikey (PW-11).
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and on perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant.
Consequently, I.A. No.17629/2019 filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail is hereby dismissed.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE pnm Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 30/01/2020 15:00:05