Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4132 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                         Cr.A. No.9129/2018
              (Dinesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
                                                                     -1-

Indore, dated 10/08/2021
       Heard through Video Conferencing.

       Shri S.K. Meena, learned counsel for the appellant.

       Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent / State.

Heard on I.A. No.9145/2019, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence on behalf of the appellant - Dinesh.

The appellant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-

       Conviction                       Sentence
 Section    Act       Imprisonment      Fine If    Imprisonment in
                                       deposited   lieu of fine

 302        IPC       3 years R.I.        No       6 months R.I.

 366        IPC       3 years R.I.        No       6 months R.I.
 376(2)(n) IPC        11 years R.I.       No       1 year R.I.
 506        IPC       3 years R.I.        No       3 months R.I.
 6          POCSO     11 years R.I.       No       1 year R.I.
            Act

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that learned court below has committed gross error of law and facts by not appreciating various lacuna in prosecution case such as delay in filing the F.I.R. and not a single independent witness has been examined. There are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution story is unacceptable as accused came on pot and grabbed the mouth of prosecutrix and tied it with handkerchief and committed rape upon her. Dr. Parmar PW-1 stated HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

Cr.A. No.9129/2018 (Dinesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

that no definite opinion about the rape can be drawn, under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned government advocate for the respondent/State opposes the application for suspension of execution of jail sentence and prays for its rejection. Return / reply has also been filed on behalf of the State.

After perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence available on record, it appears that prosecutrix is 16 years old minor girl and her age is duly proved by the prosecution on the basis of scholar register as well as the statements of prosecutrix and her parents. The statements of prosecutrix PW-3 is well supported by Kalabai PW-4 and Vikram PW-5 and other witnesses. Lodging of F.I.R. by delay of 2 days has been properly explained by the prosecution witnesses.

On due consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the nature of offence and material available on record, without commenting on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to allow the application. I.A. No.9145/2019 is hereby dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

                                (Sujoy Paul)                           (Anil Verma)
                                  Judge                                  Judge

       N.R.

Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2021.08.12 19:35:30
+05'30'