Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 1046 of 2017
(SONU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 20-03-2023
Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mrs. Anjali Gyanani, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State.
Shri Pawan Vijayvergiya, learned counsel for the objector.
Heard on I.A. No.3965/2022, fourth repeat application under Section
389 (1) of the Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant - Sonu. His earlier applications on 28.09.2018 and thereafter
were in fact dismissed after having been argued at length and on being
confronted with the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of CrPC as
well as Test Identification Parade (TIP).
Present appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 03.07.2017
passed by Sessions Judge. Bhind in S.T. No.26/2017 for the offence
punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years RI
with fine of Rs.5000/-, and under Section 376D of IPC and sentenced to
undergo twenty years RI with fine of Rs.15,000/-, with default stipulations.
A s per prosecution story, on 14.11.2016 while the prosecutrix, aged
about 18 years and resident of village Bathri, Mihona, District Bhind, was
returning from temple with her sister Archana at 7-30 in the evening, on the way
no sooner did she reach near the house of one Lalla Rajawat, one boy got down
from a Safari Car and pressing her mouth pushed her inside the car where other
boy sitting there dragged her inside. The third boy was driving the car. Though
she raised an alarm but she was gagged and thereafter stripped of her cloth. She
has also been given beating with stick causing injury on her back, hips and right
thigh. Thereafter, she was sexually abused by all of them in succession under
intoxication. The accused persons were naming each other. One was Tillu and
another was Jeetu. However, she did not remember the name of third boy. The
vehicle number was UP-13-W-5566. Thereafter, at about 5-30 in the morning,
she was thrown out of car. She reached home with the help of one person, who
was passing through the way riding motor cycle and dropped her at her home.
Thereafter, she narrated and explained the incident happened with her to her
parents. On aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged at Crime No. 176/2016 at
Police Station Mihona, District Bhind. Statements of the prosecutrix were
recorded under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of CrPC. Upon
completion of the investigation, challan was filed. The case was committed to
Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the
evidence placed on record convicted the appellant for the offences and
sentenced him as aforesaid.
Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant while taking
exception to the impugned judgment submits that the appellant has not been
named in the FIR. The FIR itself was filed belatedly after six days. Appellant's
name appeared for the first time in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded
before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The appellant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. The appellant has already suffered jail incarceration
for six years four months. Hence, the appellant may be extended benefit of
suspension of jail sentence.
Per contra, Mrs. Anjali Gyanani, learned Public Prosecutor for the State,
as well as Shri Pawan Vijayvergiya, learned counsel for the objector, have
opposed the application vehemently by submitting that though the appellant's
name is not mentioned in the FIR and the names of Tillu and Jeetu were
mentioned but she has further stated in the FIR that she would recognize third
person after being shown to her. During Test Identification Parade she has
identified the appellant by pointing towards him. She has also named the
appellant in 164 statement. Besides, in her ocular evidence, in chief, the details
of the alleged incident have been reiterated in paras 1,2,3,4 and 7. In her cross-
examination she has withstood her testimony. That apart, in the medical
evidence Dr. Ranjana Chaudhary (PW-4) has proved the MLC conducted and
explained the injuries suffered by her on various parts of her body including the
vagina. In para 4 and 5 of her deposition, Dr. Ranjana Chaudhary has
confirmed that the alleged incident has occurred within seven days from the
date of her examination. With such clinching evidence on record, it is as clear
as noon in the day that the prosecutrix has been subjected to repeated rape by
all the three accused persons. There is no evidence contrary thereto on record.
The prosecutrix has not only been victim of a heinous crime of repeated rape
but also has suffered life time mental trauma and agony. If the case of the nature
in hand is not dealt with strictly particularly in the matter of suspension of jail
sentence, the message to society shall indeed be vulnerable in public domain.
Therefore, no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence in the instant
case.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the impugned
judgment and evidence on record particularly that of prosecutrix, her father and
Dr. Ranjana Chaudhary, we are of the view that there is substantial force in the
submissions of learned Government counsel as well as the counsel for the
complainant while opposing the instant application for suspension of sentence.
According to us, no case is made out for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3965/2022 is dismissed on merits.
Observations on facts, if any, are only for the purpose of deciding the
instant I.A. and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2023.03.20
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
18:47:36
+05'30'
