Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12806 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024

Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta

Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta

                                                             1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                      CRA No. 6263 of 2023
                                         (JITENDRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                         Dated : 07-05-2024
                                 Shri Bhashkar Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Shri Hemant Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

None for the prosecutrix, though served.

Heard on I.A. No.12004/2023, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389(1) of the

Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant - Jitendra.

2. The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation respectively, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2021 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, POCSO Act, Indore in Special Case No.1400003/2015.

3. Prosecution story in brief is that at the time of the incident, the

prosecutrix was minor age around 16 years and 03 months. At around 18 days before lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix went to Kampel Market alongwith her mother. Her mother was in the market and the prosecutrix was searching for her mother. At around 05:00 PM, the appellant Jitendra and co-accused Nihal Singh took the prosecutrix at village Mayakhedi by motorcycle. The accused persons kept the prosecutrix in the house of co-accused Nihal Singh and the appellant committed rape upon her repeatedly till 14.12.2014. Co-accused Pawan threatened her and if she tell the incident to someone, he will kill her. Thereafter,

the present appellant and co-accused persons Nihal Singh and Pawan left the prosecutrix at village Kampel and the prosecutrix returned her home and narrated the incident to her mother. Matter was reported on 14.12.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits appellant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that co- accused Nihal Singh is still absconded and co-accused Pawan has been acquitted by the trial Court. It is also submitted that matter was reported belatedly without any cogent and plausible explanation.

5. It is further submitted that after missing of the prosecutrix, her parents had not lodged any missing person report. Therefore, prosecution story is

doubtful. It is submitted that in Paragraph 12 of cross-examination, the prosecutrix (PW-7) has admitted that there was old inimical relationship between family member of the prosecutrix and appellant and his family members. In Paragraph 5 of the cross-examination, she also admitted that in the house, where the prosecutrix was confined, there were two rooms and appellant alongwith his family members was living in the aforesaid house. She also admitted that she used to go out of the room to take bath and eat food, but never complained to someone.

6. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecurtrix (PW-7) and her mother (PW-1), but the trial Court without considering the aforesaid evidence available on record has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It is also submitted that he has served incarceration of around 03 years and 02 months. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and they may be released on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and prayed for its rejection.

8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and coupled with the fact that the final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application I.A. No.12004/2023 is allowed and the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended.

10. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited, appellant - Jitendra shall be released on bail, upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) along with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 08.07.2024, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

11. List in due course.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE

Shruti