Jitendra Shah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6952 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 2042 of 2022 (JITENDRA SHAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 28-04-2023 Shri Bhoopesh Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Y.D. Yadav - Government Advocate for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.3601/2022, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 376 (2)

(N) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and committed error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. It is also submitted that date of birth of the prosecutrix is disputed, because it was recorded on assumption. It is further submitted that ossification test of the prosecutrix has also not been conducted. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court passed in the case of

Phiroz vs. State of M.P. 2022 SCC OnLine MP 972 and also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwat Prasad Prajapati vs. State of M.P. on 16.11.2022. The appellant is in the custody from the date of judgment and there is a bleak possibility of disposal of this appeal in near future, hence jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail. Signature Not Verified SAN

Learned Government Advocate for the State has vehemently opposed the Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2023.05.01 12:10:42 IST application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. As per the prosecution case, age of the prosecutrix was about 15 to 16 years at the time of incident and appellant was aged about 29 years. The Doctor found that her hymen was ruptured and FSL report is also found against the appellant. It is also on record that her pregnancy got aborted. Appellant is in custody since the date of judgment.

Looking to the nature of accusation against the appellant and custody period of the appellant, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the appellant on bail. The application (I.A. No.3601/2022) is hereby dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE rj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2023.05.01 12:10:42 IST