##PAGE1##

1 CRA-4163-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

CRA No. 4163 of 2021

(GOVIND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 29-01-2026

Shri Abhishek Rathore - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta - Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Heard on I.A No.15722/2025, which is third application under Section

430 of BNSS for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant

Govind.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 363, 366 A, 376 (3),

343 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years, 5 years, 20 years, 6

months and fine of Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.200/- with default

stipulation.

3. As per prosecution a report Ex/P/7 was lodged by the complainant

(P.W.-2) stating that prosecutrix resided with the complainant’s family since

childhood. It was stated that on 09/12/2018 as the uncle and aunty of the

complainant were not present at their respective home and their daughter was

alone, therefore prosecutrix was sent to their uncle’s home at about 10PM. It

was further stated that at about 5 AM when an enquiry in respect of

prosecutrix was made, she was nowhere to be found and on suspicions a

report against the present appellant was lodged. During the course of

investigation the prosecutrix was recovered on 15/12/2018.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, it

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAMOD

KUSHWAHA

Signing time: 29-01-2026

16:47:42

2 CRA-4163-2021

is alleged that the appellant had abducted the prosecutrix and sexually

exploited her. He argued that as per the statement of the prosecutrix, she

herself had gone alongwith the appellant and another person on motorcycle

and stayed with him for 4 days. He argued that from the statement, it is clear

that she was a consenting party. However, according to the prosecution, the

age of the prosecutrix was 14 years, 2 months & 10 days and therefore, the

appellant was convicted. The prosecution has failed to prove the basis of

recording of the date of birth in the scholar register. He further argued that

the age of the appellant was 22 years at the time of incident and he had

already suffered incarceration for period of more than 7 years.

5. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the

prosecution has proved the recording of date of birth on the basis of 8th class

marksheet and, therefore, the source was not required to be proved. Apart

from that the FSL and DNA report was positive.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact

age of the appellant was only 22 years at the time of the incident and he has

already suffered incarceration of more than 7 years. The appeal is of the year

2021 and final hearing of the same may take time, therefore, we are of the

considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for grant of suspension of

sentence.

7. Accordingly, I.A No.15722/2025 is allowed. The jail sentence of

appellant Govind is suspended upon his depositing the fine amount, if not

already deposited, and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty

thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAMOD

KUSHWAHA

Signing time: 29-01-2026

16:47:42

3 CRA-4163-2021

trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/4/2026

and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

8. With the aforesaid, I.A is disposed of.

9. List the matter in due course.

CC as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE

PK

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: PRAMOD

KUSHWAHA

Signing time: 29-01-2026

16:47:42