Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirmal Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2023
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 520 of 2023
(NIRMAL BANSAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 28-06-2023
Shri Praveen Pandey - Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Pushpanjali Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No.498 of 2023 first application filed under Section
389(1) of CrPC for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant.
Vide impugned judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Kotma District Anuppur in S.T. No.04 of 2018, the
appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-,
under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to
pay fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim is a major lady
aged about 25 years. There was love affairs between them and the husband of
the victim has seen them in compromising position, therefore, the report has
been registered. He was on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty
granted to him. He is in custody since the date of judgment. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses which have
been recorded before the trial court. The conviction is based upon the
statement of the prosecutrix. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 6/30/2023
11:41:33 AM
The State of Bihar passed in Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2020 with reference to
paragraph 5.4 of the judgment, he prays for suspending the remaining jail
sentence and enlarge him on bail as even the medical evidence is not supporting
the prosecution case.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has
vehemently opposed the application stating therein that he has been in custody
for a very short period against the punishment of ten years R.I. alongwith fine.
The prosecutrix in her statement recorded before the trial Court has specifically
stated against the present appellant regarding commission of offence. There is
virtually no contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix. State counsel has
read over the statement of the prosecutrix before this court. Even the FSL
report is found to be positive but the same was not sent for DNA examination,
therefore, the conviction was under Section 376 of the IPC as she was a major
lady. State counsel has further submitted that once the statement of the
prosecutrix is found to be corroborated with the prosecution story without any
contradiction levelling specific allegation under Section 376 of the IPC, no case
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is made out as he is in custody
only for 6 - 7 months.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled
with the fact that a specific statement has been made by the prosecutrix against
the appellant in her statement before the trial Court and looking to the custody
period of the appellant, this Court is not inclined to allow the application at this
stage.
The application (I.A.No.498 of 2023) is accordingly rejected.
List for final hearing in due course.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 6/30/2023
11:41:33 AM
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 6/30/2023
11:41:33 AM
