Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9524 of 2022
(SANJAY TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 25-10-2023
Shri Sudeel Yadav - Advocate for appellant.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.15921 of 2023:
2. This is the first application seeking for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed on behalf of appellant/accused Sanjay Tomar who has been convicted
under Sections 376 (GhaKha) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(G)
(M)(N)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.50,000/- with default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2022
passed by the 18th Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act,
Bhopal in Special Case No.144 of 2021.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2021 a report has been
lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix to the effect that 7-8 days before, the
appellant and other co-accused committed rape with the prosecutrix who was
aged about 7 years. Investigation was taken up and after completion of the
investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial commenced and after conclusion
of the trial, the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced as
mentioned hereinabove.
4. This application has been filed on the ground that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
The entire case is based upon the DNA report which was produced by the
prosecution but the conviction cannot be based upon the DNA report or the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/27/2023
7:04:05 PM
medical report as per the settled legal proposition. The appellant is in custody
since 09.04.2021. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near
future. He 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 there was active participation of the present
appellant in commission of offence. The age of the prosecutrix was 7 years and
4 months at the time of commission of offence. Medical examination was got
conduced by Dr. Shilpa Pandey (PW/7) and the same has been considered by
the learned trial court in paragraphs 48 and 56 of the judgment. The samples
were collected and sent for forensic examination. The DNA report was
produced, which supports the prosecution case. Therefore, no case for grant of
bail is made out. He has prayed for rejection of the application.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the DNA
report which was produced by the prosecution, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.15921 of 2023 is rejected.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/27/2023
7:04:05 PM
