Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2021
Author: Rohit Arya
- : 1 :-
CRA No.1027/2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(DIVISION BENCH : HON. SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA &
HON. SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
CRA. No. 1027 of 2013
(Narayan S/o. S/o. Jagan Bhil & another V/s. State of M.P.)
Date: 27.08.2021 :
Appellants by Smt. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Amit Singh Sisodia, Govt. Advocate.
Heard on I.A. No.21098/2021, a repeat (6th) application for
suspension of custodial sentence awarded by 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No.174/2013 vide judgment dated
22.6.2013 whereby they have been convicted u/s. 376(d) and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-; and
u/s. 506 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo two years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- respectively. All the earlier (first to fifth) applications for
suspension of sentence were dismissed as withdrawn.
As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix along with her
husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and one Hariom Vaishnav
reached to the Police Station Baroth and lodged the report on
24.4.2013 that her husband works as a labour in the house of Hariom
Master and she also works separately. In the day time from 1.00 to
6.00 she was sitting outside her house and near about at 7.30 her
neighbour Narayan and Rajesh i.e. the present appellants came to her
house and inquired about Antar. She told that he went Hatpipliya along
with children. After some conversation, as per the pre-planning, they
committed rape upon her and left the place after threatening her. Near
about at 8 - 8.15, her husband came back from Hatpipliya, she narrated
the entire incident to her husband and they called the Hariom Vaishnav,
the owner of the agricultural land. Thereafter, the present appellants
came and threatened her husband for lodging the report. The husband
of the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to other family members
and after the discussion, they decided to lodge a report. After lodging
- : 2 :-
CRA No.1027/2013
the report, the prosecutrix was medically examined, her clothes were
seized, spot map was prepared and all the seized articles were sent to
the FSL. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
u/s. 376(d) and 506 Part II of the IPC against both the appellants. They
denied the charges and pleaded for trial. The prosecution has examined
as many as 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got exhibited 11
documents as Exh. P/1 to P/11. In defence the appellants examined
two witnesses viz. Prakash and Madan as D.W.1 & D.W.2 and got
exhibited the statement of the prosecutrix as Exh. D/1. After
appreciating the evidence that has come on record, learned Addl.
Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants and sentenced, as stated
above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
The appeal has been admitted for final hearing. The appellants
are in jail since the date of their arrest.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants
have completed more than 7 years of incarceration and there is no
likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future. The appellants have
good prima facie case. They are the youth of 23 and 18 years, as on the
date of judgment and the prosecutrix was of the age of 40 age at the
time of alleged commission of offence. As per the Doctor's opinion
(P.W.4), she did not find any external injury and hence, no definite
opinion about the rape was given, therefore, the allegation of rape by
the present appellants is unfounded. As per medical report of the
appellant, no smegma was found which negative the allegation of
rape/intercourse.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the
respondent/State, opposes the prayer by submitting that there are no
changed circumstances in this case after rejection of earlier
applications for suspension of sentence. The sole testimony of the
prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the appellants. He, therefore, prayed
for rejection of the repeat application for suspension of sentence.
We have perused the record.
- : 3 :-
CRA No.1027/2013
Accordingly, I.A. No.21098/2021 is allowed and it is directed
that subject to deposit of fine amount with the trial Court and on
furnishing personal bonds by the appellants in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Thirty Thousand only) each with separate solvent sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their first appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 20.12.2021 and on all subsequent
dates before the trial Court as may be fixed in this behalf, the
execution of custodial part of the sentence of the appellants shall
remain suspended till the final disposal of this appeal.
C.C. as per rules.
( ROHIT ARYA ) ( VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.09.03 17:21:35 +05'30'
