High CourtsSingle Bench

Naresh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 June 2022 · Citation: (2022) 06 MP CK 0004

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 389(1) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(2)(I) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(L), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1514 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 409 words

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

Heard on I.A.No.2213/2022, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant - Naresh.

T he trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) & 376(2)(I) of IPC and Sec 5(L)/6 of POCSO ACT and sentenced him to undergo 07 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-, 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2018 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge District Jhabua in S.T.No.96/2017.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant kidnapped/abducted minor prosecutrix nd committed rape upon her repeatedly.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. Appellant and prosecutrix are known to each other and they were having affair. They solemnized their marriage and blessed with two children and all of them are living together. Hence, learned trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant guilty. Appellant has been falsely implicated. Moreso, appellant is in custody since 28.01.2022. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances prays for suspension of sentence and enlargement of appellant on bail, on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned Govt.Advocate opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

Having heard rival submissions of parties, statement of the prosecutrix recorded during trial and evidence produced on record with regard to the age of the prosecutrix as well as there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal, so also considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits of the case, application is allowed.

It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant 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 20.07.2022, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

I.A.No.2213/2022 is allowed.

List for final hearing in due course.

C.C. as per rules.