Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 11554 of 2022
(JITENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 06-02-2024
Shri Deepak Kumar Rawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.15654/2023, which is second application under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail moved on
behalf of appellant - Jitendra.
2. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
15.06.2023.
3. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and
307 (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' RI with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and ten years' RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- (2 counts) respectively
with default stipulations, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, Ujjain in
Special S.T. No.42/2019.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.09.2019, at around 09:30 PM,
the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix (PW-2) in her washroom.
When the prosecutrix returned her house and narrated the incident to her
husband (PW-1), then the accused also came in front of her house. Husband of
the prosecutrix asked about the incident with the appellant. Thereafter, the
appellant assaulted prosecutrix's husband. The prosecutrix tried to rescue her
husband, then he also assaulted her by means of an axe with an intent to kill
them. Matter was reported against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not
committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is also
submitted that as per medical report, husband of the prosecutrix had received
only simple injuries on his body, therefore, it is clear that the appellant has no
intention to kill him. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix was examined by
the lady Doctor around 1.5 months later of the incident, therefore, story of rape
is doubtful.
6. It is also submitted that there was love relationship between the
prosecutrix and the appellant and at the time of the incident, husband of the
prosecutrix had seen the prosecutrix and the appellant in an obscene condition,
then he assaulted the prosecutrix by means of an a x e . Thereafter, the
prosecutrix sustained injuries. It is also submitted that when the prosecutrix was
intervening herself, her husband also got injured. It is also submitted that
appellant had not assaulted the prosecutrix and her husband, but the trial Court
has not considered the aforesaid fact properly in the impugned judgement and
has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant has served
incarceration of around 04 years and 04 months. Final hearing of this appeal will
take sufficient long time, therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of
the appellant may be suspended and he be released on bail.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and
submits that the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her husband (PW-1) have received six
and nine incised wound on their body respectively. Both of them also sustained
injuries on their vital parts of the body. Prosecutrix (PW-2) has also received
fracture on her head, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and also considering the
evidence available on record, at this stage, I am not inclined to suspend the jail
sentence of the appellant. IA No.15654/2023 stands rejected accordingly.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
Shruti
