MEHRUNISHA Vs. USMANGANI @ HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As in both the captioned applications the prayer is common i.e. to cancel the bail of the convict - accused, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The respondent No.2 herein came to be convicted vide judgement and order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in the Sessions Case No.23 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). The trial court sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The convict preferred Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2018 before this Court questioning the legality and validity of the judgement and order of conviction and sentence. The Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2018 came to be admitted by this Court and is pending for final hearing. Along with the Criminal Appeal, the convict has also preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.2 of 2018 seeking suspension of the substantive order of sentence. The Criminal Misc. Application No.2 of 2018 came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2019. The order reads thus : "1.00. This is an application under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of a convict-accused seeking suspension of the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.23 of 2015 dated 08/02/2018. 2.00. We take notice of the fact that the applicant-convict herein was put on trial in the court of 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted the applicant herein for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years. Considering the previous conviction of the applicant accused for the offence u/s.376 of IPC, the Trial court sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under the provisions of Section 376(E) of IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted the applicant herein of the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) 00. We have heard Mr.Sumit Sikarwar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-convict and Mr.Ronak Raval, the learned APP appearing for the State. We have also gone through cursorily the oral evidence of the prosecutrix PW No.4 Ex.27. At the relevant point of time I.e. at the time of commission of the offence, the prosecutrix was aged 39 years. In her evidence, she has deposed that prior to her marriage with one Altaf Abdulbhai Patel, she was in love and relationship with the applicant herein. However, later she decided to put an end to such relationship with the applicant herein and thought fit to get married to Altaf Abdulbhai Patel in 1995. However, she proceeded to depose that even after her marriage, the applicant used to visit her house and used to forcibly ravish her time and again.