Hari Chandra @ Harish Chandra ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 309 MP

                                                                       1                              CRA-5808-2021
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      CRA No. 5808 of 2021
                                          (HARI CHANDRA @ HARISH CHANDRA AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 06-01-2022
                                           Shri Purushottam Soni, counsel for the appellant.

                                           Shri P.N. Verma, Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.

Heard on I.A. No.17646/2021.

This is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.

Appellant has been convicted under Section 4 of POCSO Act and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of fine additional R.I. for three months vide judgment dated 3/9/2021 passed by Special Judge (under POCSO Act, 2012), Teekamgarh in Spl. Case No.3/2019.

In the prosecution evidence produced before the trial Court there is a conflict between the ocular and scientific evidence. The prosecutrix and her parents, who have been examined as P.W-1 PW-2 and P.W-3 have not supported the case of prosecution and they have declared hostile, and nothing could be extracted from their cross-examination to support the

prosecution case.

The DNA report concluded that mixed or compound male Y-STR DNA profile found on the panty of the prosecutrix matched with the DNA profile of the accused and therefore, accused cannot be excluded.

Learned counsel for the appellant referred to para 4 and 5 of the statement of Dr.Amrish Shukla (P.W-5), who had collected the sample of blood of appellant and had handed it over to the police. The conviction is solely based on the DNA report.

Having regard to the ocular evidence as well as the evidence referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant and other evidence available on record, a case for suspending the sentence of appellant is made out. Hence, Signature Not Verified SAN I.A. No.17646/2021 is allowed.

Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.01.07 17:09:24 IST 2 CRA-5808-2021 It is directed that on deposition of fine amount, if not already deposited and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 11/4/2022 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by that Court in this behalf, the

execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on appellant Hari Chandra @ Harish Chandra Ahirwar shall remain suspended till final disposal of this appeal.

List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE

rv

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2022.01.07 17:09:24 IST