Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7695 of 2022
(RAVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 13-12-2022
Shri M.R. Verma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for respondent - State.
Shri Uma Shankar Jaiswal - Advocate for objector.
I.A. No. 16555/2022, which is an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Ravi arising out of judgment dated
22.08.2022 delivered in SCATR No. 08/2017 by Special Judge, (Atrocities Act)
Chhindwara is taken up.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC read
with Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocity Act and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/ with default stipulations.
Shri Uma Shankar Jaiswal, learned counsel for objector submits that he
has already filed written application mentioning that objector has no objection if
the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is suspended.
Shri M.R. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per
prosecution story on 01.12.2016 the appellant allegedly sexually assaulted the
prosecutrix at around 2:00 p.m. in her agricultural field. By taking this Court to
the statement of prosecutrix (PW-3) it is submitted that she categorically
admitted that there is a previous enmity between the family of victim and present
appellant. The matter even travelled to the Court. She further deposed that the
alleged sexual assault caused by the present appellant was seen by her
neighbour Mamta (PW-6). In the last question during cross examination she
admitted that report against the appellant has been lodged in order to create
pressure on him because of previous enmity. Mamta (PW-6) who is an eye
witness as per prosecutrix herself, did not support the prosecution story.
Interestingly, she stated that victim was beaten by her husband by a bamboo
stick. She has not deposed anything against present appellant, her cross-
examination shows that there was a land dispute between the appellant and
family of victim. The medical evidence does not support the case of
prosecution. Dr. Archna Kaithwas (PW-4) could not give definite opinion about
rape being committed on her. The FSL does not reflect that semen allegedly
found were relating to the present appellant. Considering the aforesaid, coupled
with the fact that final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, it is
prayed that, remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate opposes the prayer on the
basis of objection.
As noticed above, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for objector raised no
objection, if remaining jail sentence of the appellant is suspended.
We have heard the parties at length.
Considering the aforesaid statement of victim and factual matrix of the
case, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we
deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.
Accordingly, aforesaid I.A. is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of appellant- Ravi is hereby suspended and it is
directed that on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.
fifty thousand only) along with surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court, he shall be released on bail with a further direction to remain
present before the trial Court, Chhindwara on 08th March, 2023 and on
such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the
pendency of this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
MISHRA
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
2022.12.14 13:56:30 +05'30'
