Jagdish Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12605 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR CRA No. 8658 of 2023 (JAGDISH MEENA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 04-08-2023 Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Ankita Maathur-P.P.- appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal appears to be arguable, hence it is admitted for final hearing. Heard on I.A. No. 12289 of 2023, which is first application under

Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved by sole appellant/ Jagdish Meena.

This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 19.05.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC / ST (P.A.) Act, District Sheopur (M.P.) in case No. SC ATR/62/2022, whereby, appellant stands convicted and sentenced under Section 376 (2) (L) of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has wrongly convicted appellant without appreciating the evidence properly. It is further

argued that according to prosecution story prosecutrix is a major woman and is a deaf and dumb and during investigation her statement was recorded by one Krishna Kumar as per Ex. P/10, who is not a Government Scientific Expert, therefore, to prove Ex. P-10, he should have been examined by the prosecution. Without recording the evidence of Krishna Kumar, learned trial Court has erred in believing Ex. P-10 alleged to be the statement of the prosecutrix. It is further argued that as per prosecution story, mother, brother and eye-witnesses saw the incident, however, they all have turned hostile and did not support the story of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM

the prosecution. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of DNA report, however, collection of samples is highly suspicious as allegedly the date of incident is stated to be 28/08/2022, however, clothes were collected on 24/09/2022, otherwise, also as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in (2023) 1 SCC 83 (para 31), DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under section 45 and like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case. In this case, the appellant has already served one year of incarceration out of total awarded jail sentence of 10 years. This appeal is likely to take long time to conclude. Hence, prayer is made to suspend the jail sentence and grant of

bail to appellant.

Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on merits of the case, I.A. No. 12289 of 2023 is hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two local solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail. He is further directed to mark his appearance before the Office of this Court on 30.11.2023 and on subsequent dates given by the Office in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

List the case for final hearing in due course. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM

compliance.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE

Durgekar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM