Shubham Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 807 MP

                                                             1
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 5260 of 2022
                                        (SHUBHAM RAGHUWANSHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 13-01-2023
                                Shri Manish Datt - Sr. Advocate with Shri Nishank Pal Verma -

                          Advocate for the appellant.
                                Shri Vijay Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the objector.

Heard on the question of admission.

Record of the trial Court perused.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A No. 11230/2022 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant Shubham Raghuvanshi.

The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years & fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulations vide judgment dated 04.06.2022 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 99/2019 by learned Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram (M.P.).

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are completely missing. In view of the genesis of the occurrence and the character of the evidence, no offence under Section 376(1) of IPC is made out against the present appellant. It is further submitted that, learned trial Court has not appreciated the material evidence brought on record in proper perspective and erroneously recorded the conviction against the present appellant. It is further submitted that prosecutrix is an adult and has admitted in her cross-examination before the trial Court that Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 1/20/2023 11:05:38 AM

before lodging the first information report, agreement was drawn that the marriage would take place within one year but the report was lodged within three months. It is further submitted that this is a case of consent. FSL report is negative. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2014)5 SCC 678; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & another 2021 SCC Online SC 181; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)9 SCC 608, Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020)10 SCC 108 and in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka (2003)4 SCC 46 and prayed that application for suspension of sentence be allowed.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application and prays for its rejection.

Learned counsel for objector also opposed the application for suspension of sentence and submitted that prosecutrix as well as her parents have supported the prosecution story and submitted that appellant had made commitment to the prosecutrix to marry and on that pretext he had developed the physical relation. It is also submitted that after agreement, the appellant refused to marry of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the objector relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Mango Ram (2000)7 SCC 224; Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (2013)7 SCC 675; Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)11 SCC 615; State of U.P. Vs. Naushad (2013)16 SCC 65, Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2019)13 SCC 1, State of Haryana Vs. Hasmat (2004)6 SCC 175, State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth (2008)5 SCC 721, Kishorei Lal Vs. Rupa (2004)7 SCC

Signature Not Verified 638, Vasant Tukaram Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005)5 SCC 28. Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 1/20/2023 11:05:38 AM

I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Prosecutrix as well as her parents have supported the prosecution story and submitted that appellant had made commitment to the prosecutrix to marry and on that pretext she had developed the physical relation. After agreement, the appellant had refused to marry of the prosecutrix.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail and suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, I.A No. 11230/2022 is dismissed. List the matter for final hearing in due course.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE

Amitabh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH RANJAN Signing time: 1/20/2023 11:05:38 AM