Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Lalita Singaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7497 of 2022
(SMT. LALITA SINGAUR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 23-06-2023
Shri Paritosh Trivedi - Advocate for the appellants.
Smt. Ekta Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on the question of admission.
The appeal being arguable is admitted.
Also heard on I.A No.13966/2022, which is second application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved
on behalf of appellant no.1 Smt. Lalita Singaur.
T h e appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI with a fine of
Rs.1,000/-. She has also been convicted under Section 372 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default
stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court has erred in
not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in
the versions of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant is in jail since
22.08.2022. He further submits that there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prays for its rejection.
2Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the judgment of the court below.
Under the interim application, I.A. No.13966/2022, on which arguments have been heard, suspension of sentence has been prayed only for appellant no.1 Smt. Lalita Singaur. The role of this appellant was found to be that she was instrumental in the sale of a minor girl who was subjected to sexual abuse by two persons. The first application filed by this appellant under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. was rejected on 15.11.2022. There is no whisper about the liberty granted in that order for reviving the prayer for bail after a particular period of time. The evidence recorded in the case has been examined.
Prosecutrix (P.W.5) has specifically given the details of role played by appellant no.1 Smt. Lalita Singaur. Here, paragraph no.18 is very relevant where she has disclosed that on request made to Pramod to allow her to go back to Mandla; Pramod informed her that he has paid a price for prosecutrix, therefore, she was not allowed to leave. It is also stated by the prosecutrix that it was appellant no.1 Smt. Lalita Singaur who sent the prosecutrix along with Pramod.
Learned counsel for the appellant has insisted on the statement of prosecutrix in para 3 wherein she has shown her consent to marriage but there is a finding of trial court that the age of prosecutrix was below 18 years.
In the light of these facts, this Court is not inclined to allow this second bail application moved under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant no.1 Smt. Lalita Singaur.
The application is dismissed.
List for final hearing in due course.
Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVADate: 2023.06.24 11:28:41 +05'30' (ANURADHA SHUKLA) Adobe Reader version: 11.0.23 3 JUDGE ps