MAYANK ALIAS RAMSHARAN Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kamal Krishna, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ghan Shyam Das, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Ram Badan Maurya, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-4.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 23/12/2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-3, Firozabad in Sessions Case No. 1824 of 2023 (State Vs. Mayank @ Ramsharan) arising out of Case Crime No. 446 of 2023, under Sec. 376 IPC and Sec. 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Shikohabad, District- Firozabad. 5. By means of the impugned judgment and order dtd. 23/12/2024, applicant-appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 IPC and Ss. 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act. Consequently applicant/appellant has been sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.30,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act and in case of default in payment of fine, applicant-appellant is to undergo two years additional rigorous imprisonment. 6. Mr. Kamal Krishna, the learned Senior counsel for applicant/appellant submits that applicant-appellant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In view of the impugned judgment and order passed by Court below, applicant-appellant was taken into custody on 23/12/2024 and since then, he is under incarceration. Accordingly, applicant/appellant has filed abovementioned application for suspension of sentence seeking his enlargement on bail during the pendency of present appeal. 7. It is then submitted by the learned Senior counsel that though applicant-appellant is a named and convicted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal. A very short and interesting question has been raised by the learned Senior counsel in challenge to the impugned order. According to the learned Senior counsel, it is an undisputed fact that during the pendency of proceedings, applicant/appellant had solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Accordingly, the prosecutrix became the legally wedded wife of applicant/appellant. As a result of above, the parties started living together as husband and wife. On account of co-habitation of applicant/appellant and the prosecutrix, one child namely Puneet was born. He, therefore, submits that in view of aforementioned subsequent event, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant/appellant stood washed of. However, Court below, in ignorance of aforesaid fact, has awarded conviction to applicant/appellant, which is per-se illegal. To buttress his submission, the learned Senior counsel has referred to the judgments of Supreme Court in (1) K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, (ii) Mafat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589 and