Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 7103 of 2021
(JITENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 11-08-2023
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.21086 of 2021.
This is the first application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed on behalf of accused-appellant who has been convicted under Section
376(3) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years and to pay fine of
Rs.5000/- with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
T he case of the prosecution is that on 09.04.2019, the mother of the
victim filed a complaint stating that her daughter aged about 14 years was
missing since 2 a.m. In the night when she got up, she did not find her daughter
with her. Based on a suspicion, an FIR being Crime No.116 of 2019 was
lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC
at Police Station Jawar District Sehore. Investigation was taken up. Thereafter,
the victim was found on 29.05.2019 at Village Charsi, Police Station Athner,
District Betul. After due investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for
offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 5/6 of the Protection Of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Trial was conducted. After trial, the
accused though acquitted of the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n)
of IPC and Section 5(i)/6 of the POCSO Act, stood convicted under Section
376(3) of IPC and above stated sentence was imposed upon him. Questioning
the same, the instant appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim has nowhere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 8/14/2023
1:19:37 PM
reflected the name of the accused. There is no material to indicate that the
accused has committed the offence of rape. Furthermore, he has been acquitted
of the offences under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(i)/6
of the POCSO Act. However, the same is disputed by the Public Prosecutor.
He submits that the DNA test report is against the appellant and that itself is
sufficient to convict the accused.
In matters where allegation of committing offence under Section 376 of
IPC is concerned, the key evidence is that of the victim. In the instant case,
right from the inception onwards, the victim has not even suggested the
commission of the offence nor has she stated about the accused in any manner
whatsoever. It would appear that the victim did not suspect the accused under
any circumstances, even then a case has been built up against him.
On hearing learned counsels, prima facie we are of the view that the
accused is entitled to be released on bail.
Appellant - Jitendra is directed to be enlarged on bail, if he is not required
in any other offence, subject to his depositing the fine amount and on furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the trial Court/concerned Court on 21.11.2023 and thereafter
on such other subsequent dates as may be fixed in that behalf.
I.A. No.21086 of 2021 is accordingly allowed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vinod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 8/14/2023
1:19:37 PM
