Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidhmdann Alias Raj Dongre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9353 of 2023
(VIDHMDANN ALIAS RAJ DONGRE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 29-05-2024
Shri Somesh Shukla - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for respondent - State.
Heard on I.A.No.17501/2023, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant - Vidhmann Singh @ Raj Dongre.
Appellant - Vidhmann Singh @ Raj Dongre, is aggrieved of the judgment
dated 23.06.2023, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, Anuppur,
District Anuppur (M.P.), in SPL No.20/2020, whereby, appellant has been
convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506 part II and 376
(3) of IPC, Section 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(V-a)
of SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine
of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for 20 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/-, R.I. for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for 20 years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
Shri Somesh Shukla, learned counsel for appellant submits that Dr. Ritika
Shrivastava (PW-7) was examined and she has admitted that she cannot say as
to whether the underwear which was preserved was worn by the prosecutrix on
the date of the incident or not. We deem from this, it is submitted that
prosecutrix is hostile. Date of incident is 01.03.2020 to 04.03.2020. FIR was
lodged on 18.03.2020. Seizure was made on 18.03.2020.
It is submitted that even sample of the accused was taken on 18.03.2020.
It is not the case that the under garments of the prosecutrix were seized on a
prior dated and thereafter sample of semen of the accused was taken but on the
contrary it is evident from the Ex.P-9 that semen sample of the accused was
taken on 18.03.2020 at 3:20 PM. Thus, it is submitted that there is possibility of
prosecution intermixing the articles and therefore, the benefit of doubt should
go to the accused.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel for State in his turn submits that
firstly prosecutrix is minor. Dakhil Khariz register is available on record that has
not be contradicted in any form. It is further submitted that age of prosecutrix is
13/14 years. Under the POCSO Act her turning hostile has no relevance. On the
basis of the DNA report conviction can still be recorded.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on
merits, but taking into consideration the material available on record and looking
to the fact that appellant is in custody since 23.06.2023, it is directed that on
depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a
personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with
two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for
his appearance before the Trial Court on 19.12.2024 and such other dates as
may be fixed by the Trial Court, the execution of remaining part of the jail
sentence imposed upon Appellant -Vidhmann Singh @ Raj Dongre shall remain
suspended and he shall be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No. 17501/2023 is allowed & disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
