Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat @ Bharatlal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9862 of 2019
(BHARAT @ BHARATLAL YADAV AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 02-05-2023
Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No. 326/2022 for suspension of remaining sentence and
grant of bail arising out of judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by IVth
Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No. 109 of 2015.
Both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section
376 (D) of IPC to undergo RI for twenty years and fine of Rs.5000/- with
default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident of sexual
assault had taken place on 2.3.2015 but the written report was lodged on
4.3.2015. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. As per
prosecution story, both the appellants had forcefully taken the victim to an
agricultural field and committed rape on her. However, in the medical
examination/MLC, no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the
victim. The victim although deposed her statement in the Court against the
appellants. In view of the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Criminal
Appeal No.3276 of 2013 (Pappu and another Vs. State of U.P.) both the
appellants deserve bail because in the said case, the deposition of the victim
was disbelieved by the Court for an important reason that the medical report did
not support the case of the victim in a case of gang rape. It is difficult to follow
the contention that a woman was forcibly gang raped by two persons and yet
no injury of any nature was found on her body. Apart from this, the FSL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/3/2023
4:02:19 PM
report does not improve the case of the prosecution because no DNA test was
conducted and the victim was admittedly a married woman. Apart from this,
Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are in
custody since 6.11.2019. They were falsely arraigned because of Panchyat
Election related disputes. Cross examination of the victim is relied upon in this
regard. Apart from this, since final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near
future, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of both the appellants may be
suspended. In addition, the appellants have filed affidavit of the victim as
proceeding of Gram Panchyat to submit that both the parties have settled their
dispute.
The prayer is opposed by learned State counsel on the strength of
objection.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without giving any
conclusive opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of the appellants.
Accordingly, IA No. 326/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, the
remaining jail sentence of both the appellants is hereby suspended and it is
directed that the appellant no.1 - Bharat @ Bharatlal Yadav and appellant
no. 2- Dharmendra Rajput be released on bail on their furnishing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each
separately with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial court with a further direction to appear before the trial court,
Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur on 24th July 2023 and also on such other
Signature Not Verified
dates, as may be fixed by the trial court in this regard during the pendency of
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/3/2023
4:02:19 PM
this appeal.
C. c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/3/2023
4:02:19 PM
