Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10141 of 2023
(MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 29-11-2023
Shri Deepak Panjwani - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.26945 of 2023:
2. This is the first application seeking for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail filed on behalf of appellant Manoj Kumar Yadav, who has been
convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
sentenced to R.I. for Life and fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 506-II of IPC
read with Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year and fine of
Rs.500/- and under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and
fine of Rs.500/- with with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2023 passed by the
Special Judge (POCSO and SC/ST (POA) Act), Jabalpur in Special Case
No.65 of 2020.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.04.2020 the victim lodged a
written complaint to the effect that on 26.04.2020 at 4:30 pm when she was
alone in her home, the appellant entered inside the house by climbing the
boundary wall, dragged her to the room on the point of knife and committed
rape on her. The appellant was arrested. After investigation, the charge-sheet
was filed against the accused. He was put to trial. After trial, the trial court
convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated hereinabove.
4. This application has been filed on the ground that the appellant and the
victim were known to each other and she was a consenting party. There are
material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. FSL and DNA reports do not support the prosecution case. There is
no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future. He was on bail during
trial and has never misused the liberty granted to him. He is in custody since
08.05.2023 and is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by this Court while considering the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
5 . Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
contentions stating therein that the victim was a minor at the time of commission
of offence. She has supported the prosecution story in her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the trial Court. He has prayed for
rejection of the application.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the statement
of the victim coupled the manner in which the offence has been committed, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to allow the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.26945 of 2023 is rejected.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
