Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pramod Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-6913-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 6913 of 2022
(PRAMOD RAJPUT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 23-04-2025
Shri V.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
I.A.No.6279/2025, third application for suspension of sentence on
behalf of appellant -Pramod Rajput under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.
2. Appellant is facing sentence by virtue of judgment dated
16.07.2022 passed by the Court of Sixth Additional Judge, District - Gwalior
passed in S.T. No.196/2017 whereby appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Section Imprisonment Fine
450 of IPC 05 Years RI Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation
376D of IPC 20 Years RI Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation
506-II of IPC 03 Years RI -
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that trial
Court erred in convicting the appellant and awarding jail sentence without
appreciating the evidence and material available on record. In earlier bail
application, one important fact could not be argued on behalf of present
appellant that it was a case of consent prima facie and from the admission of
prosecutrix, it is admitted that she was having physical relationship with co-
accused Banti with consent. Learned counsel for the appellant refers Para 47
and 50 of prosecutrix (PW-1) in which she admits that 15-20 days back,
2 CRA-6913-2022
Banti and she had physical relationship with consent when her parents were
at Haridwar. From the said relationship, she conceived and became pregnant.
Therefore, while referring those paragraphs, counsel for the appellant submit
that pregnancy of prosecutrix was because of the relationship shared by
prosecutrix with co-accused Banti. Just to cover-up said relationship, this
story has been developed by the complaint and prosecution. It is further
submitted that it is highly improbable that she did not raise any alarm when
rape was committed over her and thereafter, her uncle woke up and pelted
stone so that co-accused may run away. DNA report does not match, and it
remained uninterpretable. Nature of the story indicates false implication.
Appellant has already suffered three years of incarceration as pre and post
trial confinement. Hearing of appeal shall take some time. He undertakes to
abide by the terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Under these
circumstances, he prayed for grant of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposed the application
and prays for its rejection while supporting the impugned judgment.
5. Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by
counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case,
application (I.A.No.6279/2025) is allowed subject to deposit of fine amount,
if not already deposited and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, jail sentence of
appellant shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal and he be
3 CRA-6913-2022
released on bail. He is further directed to remain present before the Registry
of this Court on 14.07.2025 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may
be fixed by the Registry.
6. Appellant shall not move in the vicinity of compliant side and shall
not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the them.
7. I.A.No.6279/2025 stands allowed and disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ashish*
