Raju @Hemraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 646 MP

                                  1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 3109 of 2021
                  (RAJU @HEMRAJ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 13-01-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Ranjan Banerjee, Advocate for the appellant / accused.
      Shri Dilip Parihar, PL for the respondent-State.

Documents filed through IA No.19003/2021 by the appellant is taken on record.

Heard on I.A.No.16629/2021 filed by the appellant / accused under

section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Court of 3rd Additional Session Judge, Sagar, District Sagar in S.T.No.142/18 vide its judgment dated 6-4-2021 convicting the appellant / accused under sections 376 (2) (Tha) and 506 Part-2 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 12 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

It is submitted that the finding of the learned trial court is contrary to law and there is a strong possibility to succeed in the case. There is a delay of

two days in lodging the written complaint and no justifiable reason has been assigned for it. The place where the alleged incident is said to have taken place was crowded with people and it is very improbable that any person can commit such act in these surroundings. Further, one glaring aspect of the matter is that the prosecution case is not supported by medical evidence. According to DNA report Ex.P/16, male chromosomes found in the vaginal slides of the prosecutrix does not match with male chromosomes of the appellant and thus, it is crystal clear that the appellant is not the person who committed the alleged offence with the prosecutrix. Further, the appellant is in custody since 6.4.2021. There is no likelihood of his absconding. If the appellant is not released on bail, the purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated.

Learned PL has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record particularly the DNA report which diminish the case of the prosecution, this application is allowed. It is ordered that subject

to payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of the appellant Raju @ Hemraj shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Trial court on 21.06.2022 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.

List the case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy. C.C. as per rules.

                                          (SUJOY PAUL)                                    (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                             JUDGE                                                JUDGE

                                     JP




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR
PAROUHA
Date: 2022.01.14 11:37:36 IST