Mahesh Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16035 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mahesh Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024

Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

                                                            1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                      CRA No. 699 of 2019
                                   (MAHESH VISHWAKARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                          Dated : 29-05-2024
                                Shri Prasanna Namdeo - Advocate for the appellant.

                                Shri S. K. Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.10544 of 2021, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant, pending the appeal.

Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 363, 376(2)(I) of IPC and Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act. Under Section 363 of IPC he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years & to pay fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment (reminder of natural life) and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations, vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 passed in ST No.- 862/2016 (State of M.P. vs. Mahesh Vishwakarma ) by the 23rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.).

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been

erroneously convicted by learned trial Court as learned trial Court has not considered the omissions and contradictions surfaced in the evidence of prosecution witness. It is also the contention of learned counsel that appellant has undergone almost actual incarceration of 08 years. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgment of Sodan Singh Vs. State of U.P. - order dated 5.10.2021 passed in SLP (Cri) 4633/2021, has submitted that as almost half of the sentence has already undergone by the appellant, the custodial jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and has submitted that in this case appellant has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a four year old child. There is consistent evidence of witnesses and prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Court.

On a perusal of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, minor (P.W.4), P.W.5 and DNA report (Exhibit P/32), we are of the considered view that no case for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail is made out.

Accordingly, I.A. No.10544/2021 is dismissed.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

                             (DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)                                        (VIVEK JAIN)
                                     JUDGE                                                    JUDGE

                          mrs. mishra