Deepu @ Deepnarayan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16186 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 2225 of 2022 (DEEPU @ DEEPNARAYAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 03-10-2023 Shri D. K. Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri P. Chatterjee - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A No.4990/2023, which is second application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellant. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.9.2022.

T h e appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(Cha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and Section 506 Part II of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with a fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that there is no

evidence available against the appellant. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

This second application for suspension of sentence is argued on the

ground that co-accused Anusuiya Bai has been granted the benefit of same but here no parity can be drawn between the acts alleged against the appellant and the co-accused Anusuiya Bai who was roped in the case and was convicted with the aid of Section 109 of IPC.

The application for suspension of sentence has been argued at length, more particularly on the medical examination report of prosecutrix. It is not strange that a victim of rape might not suffer any injury in the incident.

It has been argued that there was contradiction in the spot map and Nazri Naksha, namely Ex.P2 and Ex.P7, respectively. The spot map shows the place of incident to be on the left side of Barhi-Katni Road and according to learned

counsel for the appellant, Ex.P9 has shown the place of incident on the right side of that road but no question has been asked about the correctness of Ex.P9 from the maker of this map, i.e. Smt. Pratibha Shukla (P.W.6). Similarly, no questions were asked in the wake of statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from the prosecutrix. Thus these contradictions cannot be argued here. Some contradictions have been highlighted in the testimony of the doctor who had examined the appellant. These contradictions were in relation to the date of examination, etc. but arrest and examination of appellant are not the disputed facts in this case. Hence, any contradiction in that regard cannot be given importance out of the proportions. The prosecutrix and other witnesses have established the prosecution case and some minor contradictions cannot be the ground to suspend the sentence, particularly when there is no reason for false implication.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.10.04 14:58:05 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8