Ravendra @ Ravinda @ Ravind Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7648 MP

                                                              1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 8939 of 2022
                                   (RAVENDRA @ RAVINDA @ RAVIND LODHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 10-05-2023
                                Shri Divya Krishna Bilaiya - Advocate for the appellant.

                                Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No.9480/2023, which is the second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant Ravendra @ Ravindra @ Ravind Lodhi.

The first application (I.A. No.18807/2022) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 28/03/2023.

T h e appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30/07/2022 passed by Special judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Panna (M.P.) in Special Case No.86/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(D) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not identified the appellant before the trial Court and she does not depose anything against the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of DNA report, but sampling process of collection of blood is not conducted as per procedure. He further submits that no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix. Learned trial Court committed grave error by not appreciating the fact that the eyewitness of the alleged incident Devendra Singh (PW-3) i.e. brother-in-law of the prosecutrix Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANURAG SONI Signing time: 5/11/2023 5:22:30 PM

has also stated in his examination-in-chief that he could not recognize the accused because of darkness at the time of the incident. Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant without any solid and reliable evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 376(D) of the IPC against the appellant. The judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law without appreciation of evidence. He further submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty granted to him. This Appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no possibility of early hearing of this Appeal in the near future. Hence, prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the

appellant.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits that the named FIR was lodged against the appellant without any delay. It is further submitted that the DNA report is positive and as per the statement of medical expert Dr. Bhavna Tripathi (PW-7) sexual intercourse was done with the victim and hymen was found torn. He further submits that the trial Court has passed the judgment after proper appreciation of evidence that came on record and has rightly held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the application.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Balchandra (PW-2), Devendra Singh (PW-3), Dr. Bhavna Tripathi (PW-7) and documentary evidence i.e. MLC

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANURAG SONI Signing time: 5/11/2023 5:22:30 PM

report (Ex.P-22) and DNA report (Ex.P-38), it is apt to mention that the expression of any final opinion at this stage with regards to merits of the case is not desirable because it may prejudice the case of the other party. Suffice it to say, in the considered opinion of this court, it is not a fit case for suspension of remaining jail sentence of the appellant at this stage.

Accordingly, IA No.9480/2023 is hereby dismissed.

                               (SUJOY PAUL)                                (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
                                  JUDGE                                             JUDGE

                          as




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 5/11/2023
5:22:30 PM