Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8515 of 2022
(JITENDRA VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 30-11-2023
Ms. Aashu Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent-State of
M.P.
Heard on I.A. No.3275 of 2023 application under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant - Jitendra
Verma arising out of judgment dated 12.09.2022 delivered in SLP No. 27/2021
passed by Special Judge (S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989,
District Sehore.
The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 376 (1) of IPC, r/w Section 3 (2) (v) and 3 (1) (w) (1)
o f (S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 to undergo R.I. for Life
with fine of Rs.5000/-, under Section 450 of IPC to undergo R.I. for five
years with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 452 of IPC to undergo RI for two
years with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 323 (two counts) of IPC, r/w
Section 3 (2) (v-a) of (S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 to
undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.250/-, Rs.250/- and under Section
506 (Part-II), r/w Section 3 (2) (v-a) of (S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989 to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court to the prosecution
story submits that the incident had taken place on 30.11.2020. It is alleged that
the appellant at around 2 o'clock in the night entered the house of victim and
assaulted her husband. When the victim heard the cry of her husband, she
went there to save her husband. Her husband fled away out of fear. At that
movement, the appellant allegedly sexually assaulted the victim.
Ms. Aashu Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
incident had taken place on 30.11.2020, whereas FIR was lodged belatedly
on 3.3.2021. There is no plausible explanation of inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR. The only explanation put forward is that the victim unsuccessfully made
an effort on the next day to lodge the report but the Police did not reduce it in
writing. Criticizing this explanation of delay, learned counsel for the appellant
placed heavy reliance on Ex. D-2, a statement of victim recorded by the Police
on the next day of incident, i.e. 1.12.2020. The said statement was proved by
Vijay Singh Bhatti, SHO (DW-1). A bare perusal of his statement makes it clear
that there is no whisper about incident of assault or rape, and, therefore, the
story of prosecution is like house of cards and has no legs to stand. This
appears to be an after thought because of which the appellant was roped in.
For this purpose, the application and statement of victim's brother (Ex. D-5)
and (Ex. D-6) were relied upon proved by the said SHO. By taking into
account these statements/application, it is urged that the cause of dispute was
demand of money by the appellant because he had worked through his tractor
on the agricultural field of the victim and when he demanded the money for the
said work done, they refused to give money and in order to wriggle out of
said demand, falsely arraigned the appellant. For this purpose, statement of
appellant recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also relied upon. So far
positive DNA report is concerned, criticizing the procedure adopted by the
Court below, it is submitted that the report was not confronted with the
appellant, in the manner it should have been and, therefore, the question no. 63
asked in this regard is of no use to the prosecution. Even otherwise, submits
learned counsel for the appellant that it is highly improbable and impossible
that the victim was carrying the sample of the incident of 30.11.2020 for
almost four months. It is also difficult to swallow that she was wearing the
same garments on the date she lodged the report after four months. The
appellant is falsely arraigned and, therefore, he may be given the benefit of
suspension of sentence. More so when final hearing of this appeal is not
possible in near future.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection and supported the case of the prosecution on the basis of DNA
report.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and bleak
chances of final hearing in near future, without expressing any conclusive
opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining
jail sentence of this appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3275 of 2023 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of this appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed
that appellant - Jitendra Verma be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)
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, Sehore on
08.01.2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in
this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
