Manmohan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16410 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manmohan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                              1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                      CRA No. 9496 of 2023
                                      (MANMOHAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 31-05-2024
                                 Shri Rajpal Singh Sisodia, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                 Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on I.A. No.8541/2024, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed under section 389 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of sole appellant - Manmohan Singh S/o Jitendra Singh Goyal.

2. Learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 363 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 366 of IPC sentenced to RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, sentenced to 20 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation, vide its judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge(POCSO) Act, 2012, Shajapur, District Shajapur(M.P.) in Special Case No.282/2021. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.12.2023.

3. The allegation against the appellant is that he outraged the modesty of

the prosecutrix, who was below the age of 16 years at the time of the incident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The present appellant is solely convicted on the basis of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and there are lot of contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the age of the prosecutrix and the happening of the events, therefore, the version of prosecution cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred while considering the delay of

one day in filing of the FIR, is immaterial. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future, therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the offence is serious in nature. The prosecutrix in her statement has supported the prosecution case. He further submitted that the Court shall judiciously consider all the relevant factors whether specified in the objections or not, like gravity of offence, nature of the crime, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in court, etc. before passing an order for release and, therefore, he prays for rejection of the application for

suspension of sentence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgment of the trial Court.

7. Considering the evidence available against the appellant on record, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant and accordingly, I.A. No.8541/2024 for suspension of sentence is dismissed.

8. List for final hearing in due course.

                                (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                   (PRANAY VERMA)
                                         JUDGE                                              JUDGE




                           pn