Badri @ Badrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14153 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Badri @ Badrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                             1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     CRA No. 9301 of 2022
                                     (BADRI @ BADRILAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                         Dated : 14-05-2024
                               Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.

                               Shri G S Chouhan appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
                               Shri Chandra Prakash Purohit, learned counsel for the victim.


                               Heard on I.A. No.14972/2023 under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for
                         suspension of execution of sentence of sole appellant/accused- Badri @

                         Badrilal in Special Case No.108/2020 by Special Judge, Protection of Children
                         From Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Ratlam vide judgment dated 27.08.2022
                         whereby appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (n), 506
                         (Part-II) of IPC and Section 5 (L) read with 6 of Protection of Children From
                         Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 20 years R.I. and 6
                         Months R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
                               2. As per prosecution, the victim/child (PW-1) aged about 16 years, zero
                         month, 5 days was sexually assaulted by the appellant/accused on 20.03.2020 in
                         the field under Neem Tree, regarding which an FIR was lodged on 06.07.2020

                         at Police Station Rawati District Ratlam as Crime No.217/2020.
                               3. This application has been preferred by submitting that the FIR has
                         been lodged after three months of the incident and there is no explanation in the
                         statement of the victim (PW-1) and other witnesses about delay occurred in
                         lodging the FIR. The Trial Court without considering the fact committed error
                         in convicting the appellant/accused. The Trial Court has committed error in
                         determining the age of victim when father of the victim has stated that the victim
                         was major at the time of incident. The DNA report gave no conclusion
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
15/05/2024 5:50:03 PM
                                                            2

                         regarding the involvement of the appellant/accused in the said incident. The
                         MLC of the victim does not support the case of the prosecution. The
                         appellant/accused is a poor person and he is only bread earner of his family. An
                         affidavit of brother of the appellant/accused has been filed in support of an
                         application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
                                4. Learned counsel for the victim has opposed the prayer made by the
                         appellant.
                                5.    Learned   Counsel for    the   respondent/State   vide   document

No.2125/2024 has opposed an application by submitting that the case of the prosecution is duly proved by the prosecution by recording the evidence of

victim (PW-1), father of victim (PW-2) and cousin of victim (PW-3). The age of the victim shows that the victim was minor at the time of incident. The DNA profile was found on the clothes and the slide of the victim which shows that the appellant has sexually assaulted the victim. The Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the defence taken by the appellant and he could not discharge by rebuttal burden.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record available with the file.

6. Para 39 of the judgment specifically mentioned that father of victim (PW-2), cousin of victim (PW-03) and aunt of victim (PW-4) have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused only on the sole testimony of victim (PW-1) as DNA profile (Ex.P/23) mentions that very low uninterpretable Y-Chromosome STR DNA profile found on the victim slide and underwear.

7. Considering the facts elicited in Para 6,7, 9 and 13 of the cross

examination of victim (PW-1), we are inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant/accused. Accordingly, I.A No. I.A. No.14972/2023 is allowed. The jail sentence of appellant/accused is suspended upon his depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15/10/2024 and all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.

In light of judgment passed in case of Aparna Bhat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in LL 2021 SC 168, copy of this order be sent to the victim.

Certified copy as per rules.

                            (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                               (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                     JUDGE                                           JUDGE

                         Praveen