Madhya Pradesh High Court
Makhan Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 4 May, 2016
1 Cra.148/16 4/5/16
Shri S.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kamal Jain, Public Prosecutor for the State. I.A.No.1314/16, an application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail is taken up and considered alongwith reply filed by the State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. Record is perused.
By the impugned judgment dated 19/1/2016 in SST No. 58/13 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachonda, district Guna, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(1)(N) of I.P.C. and section 5 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for 3 years' R.I., with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, 7 years' R.I., with fine of Rs. 2000/-, 10 yeas R.I.,with fine of Rs. 3000/- and again 10 years R.I., with fine of Rs. 2000/-, respectively.
The learned Trial Court has relied upon the date of birth of 5/6/1998 of the prosecutrix as disclosed by her mark-sheet (Ex.P/1) of Higher Secondary School Examination to hold that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident.
Learned counsel for the sole appellant has drawn attention of this court to cross-examination of the prosecutrix in which she has stated that she was 19 years old at the time of incident and she has also denied the fact that she was kidnapped against her will. The factum of rape has also been denied by her in her cross-examination. Overall assessment of deposition of the prosecutrix indicates presence of element of consent.
Moreover, statement of Shabnam (PW-3), mother of the prosecutrix also discloses that she (Shabnam) got married 22-23 years ago and the prosecutrix being an eldest daughter was borne within one year after the marriage. This clearly supports to the testimony of the prosecutrix that she is above 19 years of age at the time of incident.
In view of said facts and that there is no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal in near future, this court is inclined to grant bail to 2 Cra.148/16 the appellant by way of suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A.No.1314/16 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant Makhan Meena will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM Guna, for his appearance before the concerned CJM on 20/6/2016 and on such further dates as may be fixed by him.
In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned C.J.M then the said C.J.M shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge (Bu)