Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappu @ Raghuraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 June, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 CRA-5088-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA-5088-2017
(PAPPU @ RAGHURAJ SINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
25
Jabalpur, Dated : 07-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Punit Shroti, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.7844/2020, which is fourth application
u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed
against appellant No.1 Pappu @ Raghuraj Singh.
T h i s appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
08.11.2017 passed by third Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in
S.S.T. No.400128/2015 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge
found appellant No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. five years with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively
and under Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to
undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
The earlier applications for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1 were dismissed as withdrawn by
this Court vide orders dated 13/11/2018, 12/04/2019 & 19/12/2019.
As per prosecution case on 06/09/2015 applicant No.1 abducted
the prosecutrix, who was minor and took her to Ganjbasoda, where he
kept her in a room and committed rape with her.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court
w ithout appreciating the evidence properly wrongly convicted the
appellant No.1 for the aforesaid offences. There are many contradiction
and omission in the statement of prosecution witnesses. From the
statement of prosecution witnesses it appears that the prosecutrix was
major and went with the applicant on her own will. Even in the
ossification test report it is mentioned that at the time of incident the age
of the prosecutrix was 16-19 years, which shows that the prosecutrix was
major. The appellant is in custody since the date of judgment i.e.,
08.11.2017. Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and
release of the appellant No.1 on bail since the hearing of this appeal is
likely to take long time.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.06.07 17:46:20 IST
2 CRA-5088-2017
opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of
prosecutrix (PW/10) and her father Govind Singh Gurjar (PW/12) it is
clearly proved that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor and
appellant No.1 abducted her and committed rape with her. It is further
submitted that the guilt of the appellant No.1 was proved beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant.
In the statement of prosecutrix (PW/10) it is clearly mentioned that
the appellant No.1 abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape with her.
Govind Singh Gurjar (PW/12) father of prosecutrix clearly deposed that
at the time of incident the age of the prosecutrix was around 17 years. In
her school entry register (Ex.P/32) also the date of birth of prosecutrix is
mentioned as 16/10/1998, so from the school entry register also it clearly
appears that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. So,
looking to the prosecution evidence this Court is not inclined to suspend
the jail sentence of appellant No.1.
Accordingly, I.A.No.7844/2020 is rejected.
Appeal has already been admitted for final hearing, so it be listed
for final hearing in due course.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.06.07 17:46:20 IST
