Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudheer Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 10979 of 2019
(SUDHEER KUSHWAHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 31-05-2024
Vijay Kumar Lakhera- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No. 23940/23, is an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
This appeal originate from judgment dated 04-10-2019 passed by the
learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Rewa in Special Trial No. 04/2018
convicting the appellant- Sudheer Kushwha under Sections 376-D of IPC with
20 years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation of 1 year RI. He
has also been convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to RI for 7
years with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of 6 months RI.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent.
Medical report is in his favour. Reading from paragraph-25, it is pointed out
that prosecutrix had well developed secondary sexual characters. There was no
sign of injury on any part of the body. Her chest was clear, abdomen was soft
and there was no injury on the stomach. There was no injury mark on her body.
Her hymen was old teared. Two slides of vagina was prepared and given to the
Women Constable. No opinion was given in regard to sexual intercourse. For
determination of age, x-ray and dental examination was advised. This report is
Ex. P/7. It is submitted that there is no x-ray report. Even in the school records
date of birth is mentioned as 20-02-2000 and date of incident 29-11-2017.
Though, she has denied the allegations of false implication but, at the
same time the report of FSL, Sagar Ex.P/19 shows that there were no semen
marks or human semen on the vaginal slide or underwear of the prosecutrix.
Taking these facts into consideration, it is prayed that the appellant has been
falsely implicated and its a good case to extend him benefit of suspension of
sentence.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Public Prosecutor has opposes the prayer
a n d reading paragraph-35 of the impugned judgment submits that she has
denied all the suggestion of being false implication and therefore, no
indulgence be shown especially looking to the age of the prosecutrix, which has
come to be less than 18 years.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on
the merits, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed.
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 20.12.2024 and
such other dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court, the execution of remaining
part of the jail sentence imposed upon appellant shall remain suspended and he
shall be released on bail till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.No.23940/2023 is allowed & disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
PG
