Deepak Shivhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4257 MP

                                                               1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                       CRA No. 7831 of 2019
                                             (DEEPAK SHIVHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 17-03-2023
                                   Mr. Prasanna Namdeo - Advocate for the appellant.

                                   Ms. Mamta Shandilya - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.1742 of 2023, which is fourth repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Deepak.

This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge Biaora, District Rajgarh in S.T.No. 387/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363 and 376(D)(a) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively with default stipulation.

As per the prosecution story, co-accused Ram Bharose alongwith present appellant Deepak Shivhare abducted the prosecutrix on motor cycle, thereafter, they took her to Dhaba gave her some sedative, when she became

unconscious, they committed rape upon her. After gaining the conscious, the Dhaba owner has informed her about the commission of rape by the two accused persons. She went to the Police Station alongwith her uncle and lodged an FIR. She was medically examined by Dr. Pooja Tiwari (PW-30), who has categorically deposed that the offence of rape was committed upon her. As per the DNA Report, male profile were also found.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 17-03-2023 19:13:45

has been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecutrix was a consenting party. She gave an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. also before the trial Court. Hence, he prays that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application of suspension of jail sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As per the scholar register, the age of the prosecutrix has been found 15 years and 6 months, therefore, her consent has no meaning.

In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, I.A. No.1742/2023 is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

                              (VIVEK RUSIA)                                              (ANIL VERMA)
                                  JUDGE                                                     JUDGE

                           Anushree




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 17-03-2023
19:13:45