IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE CRA No. 5529 of 2025 (KAMALESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 24-02-2026 Shri Nilesh Dave - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri H.S.Rathore - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

Appeal is admitted.

Also heard on I.A No.9400/2025, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for grant of suspension of sentence filed on behalf of Kamlesh.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 370, 342, 376(2)(N)

of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 7 years, 1 year, 20 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

As per prosecution case, date of incident is 04/01/2019 while FIR is lodged on 16/01/2019 and prosecutrix stated that she has been sold by other co-accused and appellant who committed rape on her. Thereafter P.S. Kukdeshwar, Distt. Neemuch, M.P. has registered the offence u/s 342, 370, 376(2)(1), 376(2)(N), 506 of LP.C. & u/s 5/6 of POCSO Act at Crime No. 17/19 and after marshalling of evidence, appellant was found guilty u/s 370, 342, 376(2)(N)of I.P.C and was convicted for 20 Years R.I by learned trial court.

Counsel for the appellant submits that against the appellant the allegation is that the prosecutrix was taken and sold by her relative Joshil and the prosecution ws purchased by the present appellant. It is further alleged that she was forced to marry with the appellant. It is contended that there is no any evidence regarding the sale and purchase of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was married with the appellant in the Court. The source of the age of the prosecutrix in the scholar register has not been proved by the prosecution. The appellant has already remained in jail for 4 years 7 months.

The final hearing of the appeal may take time.

Counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that no TIP was conducted by the prosecution and the appellant was first time identified in the Court. The prosecution has failed to prove the source regarding recording the age of the prosecutrix in the scholar register. In the case of Tijubai @ Omvati Bai and Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025(1) MPLJ (Cri.)75, it has been held that if the prosecution does not prove the source of date of birth recorded in scholar register and the same is recorded on the guess, the same cannot be the basis for conviction. The appellant has already remained in jail for 4 years & 7 months. Final hearing may take time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled for grant of bail.

Accordingly, I.A No.9400/2025 is allowed. The jail sentence of appellant Kamlesh 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 trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/4/2026 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

With the aforesaid, I.A is disposed of.

List the matter in due course.

CC as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)

JUDGE JUDGE PK