Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Pratap vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2017
CRA-434-2017
(VIKRAM PRATAP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-03-2017
Shri Som Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.2036/2017, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.
Vide the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Sagar in Sessions Trial No.02/2016 title State of M.P. through Police Station Padmakar Nagar Sagar Vs. Vikram Pratap, the learned A.S.J. has convicted the appellant under Section 376 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer on first count R.I. for eight years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) and second count R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with default clause together with the directions that the substantive jail sentences in the aforesaid Sections shall run concurrently, for having found him guilty for committing several times rape upon the prosecutrix (PW-3) criminally intimidating her for a period between 24.04.2015 and 24.11.2015.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant remained on bail during the trial of the case except a brief period of judicial custody during the trial. He never misused the liberty of bail. He submits that the appellant has been undergoing the jail sentence since 20.01.2017, the date of impugned judgment. He submits that this appeal is of the year 2017, therefore, there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard on merits in recent future. He submits that as per the academic records of the prosecutirx available on record her date of birth is 28.08.1991 and that the first date of offence is 24.04.2015. Thus, the age of the prosecutrix was over 23 years at the material time. After referring to the deposition of the prosecutrix, he submits that at the relevant time the prosecutrix and the appellant were teachers in the Christ Convent School Sagar. As such, they are intellectual elite. He submits that the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that the appellant had sex with her on the promise of marriage and on the threats that he has possessed the video-clippings of their sexual acts. However, the prosecutrix has not stated in her evidence whether she had ever seen the video-clippings and that the police had not seized the same from the possession of the appellant or any other person in the course of investigation. Thus, the prosecutrix has falsely stated that the appellant had forcible sex with her intimidating that he would viral the video-clippings of their sexual acts. After referring to Ex.D-2, he submits that the appellant has given an undertaking in writing to the SHO of the concerned police station that he would marry the prosecutrix in the year 2016 between March to December at any time after marriage of his sister. Thus, the appellant had never refused to marry the prosecutrix and that he is still ready to marry her. After referring to the deposition of defence witness Surya Pratap (DW-1), he submits that the prosecutrix herself refused to marry him because his mother is Christian. He contends that since the prosecutrix was major at the relevant time and that she is educated up to graduation, therefore, premarital sex of the appellant with her on promise of marriage is not rape. In support of this contention, he has pressed into service a decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2017(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 715, wherein her lady Lordship Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar has held that an educated young girl consented to have premarital sex with accused on promise of marriage who later backed out cannot be held guilty of rape because promise to marry cannot said to be inducement in such a case. Thus, the appellant has good case on merits. On the basis of the aforestated submissions, he prays to allow the I.A. The learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and having gone through the body of evidence on record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the confirmed opinion that a case is made out for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant till further orders. Consequently, the I.A. is allowed.
In the result, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant is suspended and the aforesaid court or its successor court is directed to release appellant Vikram Pratap on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to its satisfaction and subject to depositing of the fine amount imposed vide the impugned judgment if it is not so far deposited at the time of furnishing bail-bonds.
On being released on bail the appellant will mark his presence before the Registry of this Court first time on 20.09.2017 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it until further orders of this Court.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE sp/-