Ravi @ Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5606 MP

                                     1
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT GWALIOR
                              CRA No. 989 of 2017
              (RAVI @ RAVI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)

Dated : 19-04-2022
      Shri Pradeep Katare and Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the

appellants.
      Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.7848/2019 & IA No.9527/2021.

IA No.7848/2019 is in respect of appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh while IA No.9527/2021 is in respect of appellant No.3- Dharmendra Singh.

Both are the second repeat IAs which have been filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Earlier applications of present appellants have been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.02.2019

-IA.2151/2018 (appellant No.3) and 21.06.2019-IA.3224/2019 (appellant No.2).

Appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh along with appellant No.1-Ravi @ Ravi stood convicted under Sections 366 and 376-D IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 06.07.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) in Special Sessions Trial No.124/2015.

Appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh has remained in judicial custody for two months in pre-trial period and four years nine months since the date of judgment i.e. 06.07.2017. Similarly, appellant No.3- Dharmendra Singh has also remained in judicial custody for about two months during pre-trial period and four years nine months since the date of judgment i.e. 06.07.2017.

As per prosecution story, at about 05:30 pm on 08.07.2014 while the prosecutrix, allegedly aged 16 years, had gone to respond to the nature's call at a short distance from her house behind the school, accused Ravi and Mangal were present there. They pressed her mouth with handkerchief and took her away to a nearby pit-hole (khai) where Dharmendra and Ramu were present. Upto eight o'clock in the night, four of them with the prosecutrix remained in the pit-hole

(khai). At about 08:00, Ravi is alleged to have called a vehicle. Thereafter, all four of them took the prosecutrix in the vehicle to the house of Ravi. All of them allegedly abused her sexually against her wishes. At about 03:30 in the night, they left her near her village by car wherefrom she reached her home and narrated the

story to her parents and grandmother. She along with her brother who had come from Jaipur went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR which was registered at Crime No.37/2014 on 09.07.2014 at about 12:30 afternoon. After completion of investigation and submission of final report, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. After conclusion of trial, both the present appellants i.e. appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh along with appellant No.1-Ravi @ Ravi stood convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

Shri Goswami and Shri Katare, learned counsel for appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh, submit that it's a case of false implication as a sequel to a criminal case registered against the brother (Navneet) of the prosecutrix at Crime No.52/2012 under the NDPS Act where he was found to be in possession of 120 kg Ganja. The said case was registered on the basis of information supplied by appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and he was a witness of prosecution in the said case. That apart, the story coined by the prosecution of having kept the prosecutrix in a pit-hole (khai) by four persons, namely, Ravi, Mangal, Ramu & Dharmendra for 3-1/2 hours itself suggests concoction. From the ocular evidence of prosecutrix in the Court, it is evident that the pit-hole (khai) was not in a lonely place; instead, the same was surrounded by the houses of many other villagers. Besides, she has also stated that to reach to a car, one has to cover the distance on foot to board the car on road. Besides, she kept mum for 3-1/2 hours and did not raise alarm. The sequence of facts as culled out from her evidence suggests that it's a case of fabricated story based on concoction. Even otherwise Dr. Ranjana Choudhary (PW-6), in her deposition, has not given any definite opinion about the alleged rape; instead, she found neither any external nor internal injury on her body. There was no injury even on the private part.

Learned counsel also refers the ocular evidence of I.O. Raghuveer Singh Tomar (PW-14), in para 3 and 4, to contend that the I.O. himself has found it to be a case of false allegation. The statement is self-contained and explanatory in that

behalf. The Sessions Judge has altogether ignored the relevant piece of evidence and the judgment rests on the surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity of approach. Even otherwise, the appellants have also undergone near about five years of jail incarceration. Present appellants have no criminal antecedents whereas the father of the prosecutrix is a history-sheeter and facing criminal cases ranging from Murder, Kidnapping as well as under the NDPS Act. There is no likelihood of the appeal coming up for hearing in the near future. Hence, learned counsel for appellants pray for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3- Dharmendra Singh.

Per contra, Shri Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State, opposes the application supporting the order impugned with submission that even if the MLC report does not give definite opinion about the alleged rape but the report itself suggests the commission of crime and the same may be ascertained with the FSL report as well discussed in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment which suggests that on the clothes of the prosecutrix human semen was found. This is well corroborated with the ocular evidence. Besides the MLC suggests that there was swelling on her private part. Ocular evidence of the prosecutrix withstood in her cross-examination and under such circumstances, no exception can be taken in the matter of grant of suspension of sentence.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrains from commenting upon rival contentions so advanced touching merits of the case but regard being had to the fact that appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh have no criminal antecedents, they have undergone almost five years' of sentence and since there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in the near future; therefore, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, prima facie, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that sentence awarded to appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3- Dharmendra Singh may be suspended pending disposal of the appeal.

Consequently, IA No.7848/2019 & IA No.9527/2021 deserve to be and are hereby allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3- Dharmendra Singh shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum o f Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court first on 28/06/2022 and thereafter on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf with following further conditions:-

(i) Appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars and orders issued by the Government of India and the State Government as well as the local administration from time to time in the matter of maintaining social distancing, physical distancing, hygiene, etc, to avoid proliferation of Novel Corona virus (COVID-19);

(ii) the concerned jail authorities are directed that before releasing appellant No.2-Ramu @ Ram Singh and appellant No.3-Dharmendra Singh, the medical examination of the appellants be conducted through the jail doctor and if it is prima-facie found that they are having any symptom of Covid-19, then the consequential follow up action or any further test required be undertaken immediately.

Learned State counsel is directed to send e-copy of this order to all the concerned including the concerned Station House Officer of the Police Station for information and necessary action.

IA No.7848/2019 & IA No.9527/2021 stand closed.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                               (ROHIT ARYA)                                     (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                                  JUDGE                                                  JUDGE

                                     pd
PAWAN
        Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR
        DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
        PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
        COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
        GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,



DHARK
        st=Madhya Pradesh,
        2.5.4.20=5da1b3ce5c6aee672b1f51a5cff
        5661c113046ab7ebb8031c36dcac4472c
        040a,
        pseudonym=22FE9CB9F7CF0345E7FFA




AR
        C9031E38DF6A29B4C10,
        serialNumber=C72B9531562BC6028F5D
        6E42E82477C85878470B30E4A7672CCA
        523E83C0BCB9, cn=PAWAN DHARKAR
        Date: 2022.04.20 10:59:00 +05'30'