IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 10306 of 2023 (VIJAY SINGH SAYYAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 06-02-2024 Shri Narendra Tiwari- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akhilendra Singh- Government Advocate for the respondent-State. Heard on I.A. No. 19458 of 2023 an application under Section 389(1)

of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Vijay Singh Sayyam arising out of judgment dated 07.07.2023 delivered in Special Session Trial No. 99/2020 passed by Special Judge (PACSO), District Dindori (M.P.).

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years, with fine of Rs. 500/- , Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 B years, with fine of Rs. 500/ & Section 5 ( )/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years, with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations.

Learned Government Advocate apprised that victim has been served.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story, the age of the victim was 17 years and 10 months at the time of incident. The prosecution story is unbelievable because as per counsel for the appellant, victim was returning from a shop and from a crossing near "Rangmanch" (Theater) the appellant allegedly caught hold her hands forcibly taken her outside the village and in the agricultural field of Lakhan allegedly sexually assaulted her twice. By taking through the spot map Ex. P/4, it is submitted that it is not possible that at 7 pm, one can take a young girl forcibly by crossing the entire village and story is totally improbable.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR The father of the victim Annexure P/4 categorically admitted that out of anger he lodged a report against the appellant. The appellant and prosecutrix were in romantic relations on their own volition. Even their "Mangni" ceremony had taken place and parties on their own volition filed a "Rajinama" before the Court below. The victim was more than 19 years of age at the time of alleged commission of crime. Almost similar line of statement was made by the mother of victim PW/2. It is submitted that determination of age by court below is erroneous. The victim was more than 18 years of age and it was a case of consent which is evident from the statement of parents of the prosecutrix. It is also stated that final hearing of the appeal is not possible in near future. Thus remaining sentence may be suspended.

Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.

Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 19458 of 2023 is allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant- Vijay Singh Sayyam be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Dindori on 22.04.2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per Rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR (SUJOY PAUL) (VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR