Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-6143-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6143 of 2023
(SANDEEP YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ) Dated : 09-08-2024 Ms. Renu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Harsharan Verma, learned counsel for the objector. Mr. Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.8025/2024, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Sandeep Yadav.
Appellant - Sandeep Yadav , is aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.04.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) in SC ATR No.13/2019 whereby, appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section Section 366/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, Section 354 of IPC and sentence to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix in her evidence has nowhere said that she was abducted knowing well that she is a member of scheduled tribe community. There is no such averment to constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is submitted that knowledge of the accused that prosecutrix Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUNDAN SHARMA Signing time: 12-08-2024 13:56:55 2 CRA-6143-2023 was a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes is necessary and there is no such imputation that he has abducted the prosecutrix knowing this fact. On the contrary, the prosecutrix has said that he wanted to marry her and had threatened her that if she will not marry then she will have to face adverse consequences. In view of such facts, it is submitted that since appellant is already in custody for over one year and appeal is going to take time, office under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act primafacie is not made out. Therefore, appellant be given benefit of suspension of sentence.
Prayer is not opposed by Shri Harsharan Verma, Advocate, for the objector.
Shri Arvind Singh, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer of the appellant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on 20.12.2024 and such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court, the execution of remaining part of the jail sentence imposed upon Appellant - Sandeep Yadav shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No. 8025/2024, is allowed & disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUNDAN SHARMA Signing time: 12-08-2024 13:56:55 3 CRA-6143-2023 (VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE K.S. Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUNDAN SHARMA Signing time: 12-08-2024 13:56:55