Madhya Pradesh High Court
Annu @ Anvar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.1075/2022
(Annu @ Anwar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 14.6.2022
Shri N.K.Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kostubh Pathak, learned Govt.Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.1548/2022, first application for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to under five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mandleshwar, West Nimar in Special S.T.No.56/2017.
Learned counsel for the appellant referring the statement of the prosecturix (PW-2) submits that she herself stated in her statement that she was major at the time of incident. Ossification test report Ex.P/42 itself shows that at the time of incident her age was in between 16 to 18 years, therefore, learned trial Court has committed error in finding the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident below 18 years. As prosecutrix was major at the time of incident, therefore, only on the basis of DNA test report it cannot be said that prosecutrix was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse as she herself not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
2 Cr.A.No.1075/2022(Annu @ Anwar Vs. State of M.P.) There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that as per ossification test report prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. DNA test report is a conclusive proof, which shows that prosecutrix was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse by the appellant. Offences alleged against him are serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record with regard to age of the prosecutrix, specially ossification test report, statement of the prosecutris as well as her parents and also considering other evidence with regard to commission of the ofence, there is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A.No.1548/2022 is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, he shall be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 25.7.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
3 Cr.A.No.1075/2022(Annu @ Anwar Vs. State of M.P.) I.A.No.1548/2022 is allowed.
List for hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge Patil Digitally signed by SHAILESH PATIL Date: 2022.06.15 11:49:30 +05'30'