Kallu @ Dragpal Singh Rathore vs The State Of M.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 17833 MP

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       CRA No. 4691 of 2021
                                      (KALLU @ DRAGPAL SINGH RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 26-10-2023
                                 Shri Shishir Verma - Advocate for appellant.

                                 Shri A.S. Baghel - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

Heard on I.A.No.22796 of 2022 which is the third application for suspension of sentence and bail filed on behalf of accused-appellant - Kallu @ Dragpal Singh Rathore.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.09.2017 at about 12:00 A.M. when the victim went out at mid night for nature call, she did not return. Her father lodged a missing complaint. Thereafter, she was recovered on 17.09.2017. She has narrated the manner in which the offence has been committed. Therefore, the case was been registered against the accused under Sections 363/34, 366/34 and 376 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was convicted for the offences under Sections 376 and 366/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years, 07 years and for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment.

3. The statement of the victim is clear and cogent. She has stated the offence committed by the accused and the manner in which he has treated her. The only contention of the accused is that if it was a case of a forcible offence on her, she should have raised hue and cry.

4. However, we do not find that one singular ground itself is sufficient Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 10/27/2023 12:24:05 PM

especially in view of the fact that the DNA is held against the accused. Hence, we do not find any good ground to enlarge the appellant on bail.

5. I.A. No.22796 of 2022 is accordingly dismissed.

                                 (RAVI MALIMATH)                                     (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                   CHIEF JUSTICE                                          JUDGE

                           Sha




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 10/27/2023
12:24:05 PM