Raju Mahant vs State Of Mp
2023 Latest Caselaw 19600 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raju Mahant vs State Of Mp on 23 November, 2023

                                                              1
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT GWALIOR
                                                       CRA No. 4611 of 2021
                                                      (RAJU MAHANT Vs STATE OF MP)

                           Dated : 23-11-2023

                                 Shri Anil Mishra and Ms. Harshita Mishra, learned counsel for the

                           appellant.
                                 Smt. Angali Ghyanani, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

Heard on I.A.No. 29025/2021, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of sole

appellant - Raju Mahant.

By the impugned judgment, appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(d)(b) of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year RI.

As per the prosecutor story, appellant committed rape with minor prosecutrix.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court failed to appreciates the oral as well as documentary evidence brought

before it, specially the cross-examination of prosecutrix.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State by way of reply has strongly opposed the application. It is submitted that DNA report (Ex. P/33), as per para 73 of the judgment is against the appellant. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

We have heard learned counsel for rival parties and perusedthe record. The minor prosecutrix and her mother have supported the story of prosecution. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant

vehemently relied para 10 of cross-examination of prosecutrix in which she states that ";g dguk lgh gS fd ?kVUkk ds le; jktw egar eafnj ij ugha Fkk A" but it is

not the entire case of the prosecution that the criminal offence was committed inside the temple in fact in Ex. P/10 which is the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the place of incident is mentioned as a " dqfV;k" in the

temple premises. Even otherwise, the prosecutrix was a minor girl of 7-8 years at the time of incident and DNA report (Ex. P/33) is positive, therefore, presently in the considered view of this Court, it is not a fit case to give benefit of suspension of sentence to the appellant.

Application (I.A.No. 29025/2021) is dismissed.

Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove, 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.

                              (RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)                           (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                     JUDGE                                           JUDGE

                           JPS/-