Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9493 MP

                                         --1--




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE

                         CRA No. 332 of 2023
                   (RAHUL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



Dated : 23.06.2023

      Shri Nilesh Manore- Advocate for the appellant.

      Shri K.K. Tiwari- Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.222/2023, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant- Rahul.

(2) The appellant has been convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in S.T. No.194/2020 vide judgment dated 09.11.2022 and sentenced as under:-

          Conviction                             Sentence

       Section    Act    Imprisonment Fine                 Imprisonment in
                                      if deposited details lieu of fine

       450        IPC    7 years R.I.      5000/-           6 months
                                                            additional R.I.
       376(2)(L) IPC     20 years R.I.     20000/-          2 years
                                                            additional R.I.

(3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that no any independent witness has been

--2--

examined by the prosecution and the conviction is based only on the evidence of complainant and trial court has discarded the defence version without any reason and the prosecutrix evidence was not supported with medical evidenced. The appellant is in jail since 16.03.2020 till now. He further submits that final hearing of the appeal will take long time and looking to the period of sentence which the appellant has suffered so far, the application for suspension of sentence be allowed. (4) Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6) Considering the fact and circumstance of the case and on perusal of the record, it was found that the prosecutrix is mentally ill and also looking to the statements of the prosecutrix as well as the medical evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant benefit of suspension of sentence and bail to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.222/2023 is rejected.

       (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI )                                      (HIRDESH)
           JUDGE                                                     JUDGE



   N.R.




Digitally signed by
NARENDRA KUMAR
RAIPURIA
Date: 2023.06.26
10:39:31 +05'30'