Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kamlesh @ Bhajju Barar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 339 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 339 MP
Judgement Date : 27 February, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh @ Bhajju Barar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2021
Author: Anjuli Palo
                                   1                              CRA-7251-2019
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRA-7251-2019
             (KAMLESH @ BHAJJU BARAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

7
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-02-2021
       Shri Babooji Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
       Shri S.K.Kashyap, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.10288/2020, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant Kamlesh @ Bhajju Barar has been convicted by the

judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.90/2018. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulations.

The case of the prosecution is that when the prosecutrix was returning home the appellant caught hold of her and forcibly committed rape upon her. At the time of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was about 13-15 years. The case of the prosecution is supported by the statement of the prosecutrix and

medical evidence of the Doctor who found that her hymen was ruptured.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution witnesses did not produce any document relating to the age of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that as per the statement of Dr. Sakshi Gangele (PW-3), there is no internal and external injury on the body of the prosecutrix. There is contradictions and omissions in the statements of the material witnesses.

On the other hand, the State has opposed the application. Considering the age of the prosecutrix, medical report of the Doctor (PW-3) as well as the findings rendered by the Trial Court against the appellant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case where the sentence imposed upon the appellant should be suspended.

2 CRA-7251-2019 Accordingly, I.A.No.2088/2020 is dismissed.

              (SMT. ANJULI PALO)                                  (B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
                    JUDGE                                                    JUDGE


         AM


Digitally signed by ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2021.03.01 17:15:58
+05'30'
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter