Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2017
CRA-2110-2013
(LALLU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
21-03-2017
Smt. Garima Tiwari, learned counsel, for the appellant.
Smt. Shahin Fatima, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent-
State.
Heard on I.A. No.51/2016, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.
Vide the impugned judgment dated 29.6.2013 (Be it noted that in the judgment itself under the head "Judgment" the date of judgment is mentioned as 29.6.2016 which is not correct as per the record of the trial court) passed by the Sessions Judge Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.318/2011 titled State of M.P. through Police Station Bamitha district Chhatarpur Vs. Lallu, the appellant stands convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for ten years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) in default of which to further undergo RI for one year and six months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was arrested in the case on 9.8.2011 and that he was sent in judicial custody on 10.8.2011. He remained in judicial custody in the case up to 29.6.2013 and he has been undergoing the jail sentence in the case since 29.6.2013, the date of impugned judgment. Thus, the appellant has been in prison by now for five years, seven months and twelve days out of the total jail sentence of ten years. She submits that this appeal is of the year 2013. Hence, there is no likelihood of it being heard on merits in recent future. After referring to the depositions of material prosecution witnesses namely, Bhagwati (P.W.1) and Raggu (P.W.3), who are the parents of the prosecutrix (P.W.12), she submits that the appellant is falsely implicated in the case on account of property dispute. Thus, the appellant has a good case on merits as well. She submits that this is the first ever criminal case registered against the appellant and that he has no criminal antecedents. She submits that the appellant is a permanent resident of Gangwaha village, the place of occurrence. Upon these submissions, she prays to allow the I.A. Learned Government Advocate submits that the relation between the appellant and the prosecutrix is of the uncle and niece. She submits that at the relevant time, the appellant was neigbbour of the prosecutrix's family. She submits that the prosecutrix was undisputedly aged about 14 years at the relevant time and that she is deaf and dumb by birth. She submits that the court recorded the statement of the prosecutrix through Ila Tiwari (P.W.10), who is a deaf and dumb communication interpreter. She submits that the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that it is the appellant who sexually exploited her giving inducements and putting her in fear. She submits that the prosecutrix has clearly stated that on account of forcible intercourse by the appellant she became pregnant and gave birth to a girl. She submits that this fact is proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Geeta (P.W.2). She submits that there is nothing in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and her parents to draw a conclusion even remotely that the appellant is falsely implicated in the case except some minor inconsistencies. She submits that considering the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time and the relation between the prosecutrix and the appellant, it is a case of incestuous rape. Thus, the appellant committed a highly abominable crime. She submits that as per the record no sooner did the FIR, Ex.P1, was lodged by the prosecutrix's mother Bhagwati, the appellant absconded and the police arrested him after a hunt of four months. She submits that as per record of the trial court, the appellant's wife had passed away and that he has no issue. In the circumstances, if he is released on bail then he will abscond forever. Upon these submissions, she has strongly opposed the prayer.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsels in totality and having gone through the evidence on record and the written-objections submitted by the respondent-State as against the I.A., but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Therefore, the I.A. is dismissed. Taking into consideration the long incarceration of the appellant in jail, this appeal deserves to be decided on merits without delay. Therefore, the Registry is directed to list the appeal for final hearing on any working Thursday preferably in the month of April 2017. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ps