Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manglesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2016
CRA-1949-2016
(MANGLESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
26-10-2016
Mr. Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Arvind Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on I.A. No.17508/16 an application U/s.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
According to the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix is alleged to have taken away from the lawful guardianship of her parents and raped by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of the prosecutrix who is PW-4 in which she says that on 20.1.2014 when she had gone out of her house to answer nature's call, the appellant herein is stated to have forcibly closed her mouth and taken her to Gondiya. The incident occurred between 9 and 10 P.M. He further states that outside the village in the field of Pandit, the appellant is stated to have raped her. Thereafter, she was taken to Gondiya and from there on 21st of January, 2014 between 4 and 5 in the evening, she was brought back hom. Thereafter, her father is stated to have registered the F.I.R. against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to para 4 of the cross- examination of the prosecutrix in which she says that the road in front of her house is busy and people are seen going and coming even at 11 p.m. She further states that it is correct to suggest that when they came back from Gondiya that the villagers had seen them coming back. She further states that when they came back to the village, the appellant had not tied her mouth and that it is further correct to suggest that she did not tell in the village after coming back that the appellant had raped her the previous night. In para 5 she states that the next day her parents along with Police had come to the house of the appellant and that it was correct to suggest that in front of the Police and her parents, the prosecutrix had stated that she wanted to stay with the appellant. She further states that it is correct to suggest that her parents and the Police scolded her and then took her to the Police Station Hata.
On the basis of what has been stated hereinabove, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is strong evidence to suggest that the case is one of consent. Prima-facie it does appear so, that the case is one of consent. However, learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the consent of the prosecutrix was of no avail as she was a minor at the time of the offence and her age was 17 years and therefore even if it is assumed that there is strong prima-facie evidence to suggest that the prosecutrix was a consenting party on account of her age, the act of the appellant would still constitute a statutory rape. To this, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to para 3 of the prosecutrix statement in cross-examination in which the prosecutrix herself states that she is the second inline of five children and that her eldest sister is 20 years of age. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of PW-5, who is father of the prosecutrix who has stated in his cross- examination that the prosecutrix herein is two years younger to the eldest child. On the basis of the same, learned counsel for the appellant has emphasised that the age of the prosecutrix is about 20 years. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out to the report of the F.S.L. which is suggestive of semen stains having been found in the slides and the undergarment of the prosecutrix.
In view of what has been argued hereinabove as also the evidence and the prima-facie appreciation of the same, I am inclined to allow I.A. No.17508/16 and suspend the remaining part of jail sentence of the appellant Manglesh, and direct that the appellant herein shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
The appellant shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 31.1.2017 and on such other dates as may be directed in this behalf.
C.C. during the course of the day.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a