Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
1 CRA-6095-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 6095 of 2021
(RAJU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 26-08-2025
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.3541/2025, second application under Section 430 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C.) for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of the appellant No.2 - Kailash S/o Jagdish.
The appellant stands convicted under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(D),
342, 506 and 370 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 02
years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-; 03 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-;
Imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.5,000/-; 03 Months' RI; 06 Months'
RI; and 05 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively with usual default
stipulation.
As per prosecution story, a missing report was lodged by the brother of
the prosecutrix at Police Station Sitamau, Distt. Mandsaur on 16/05/2018
with allegation that his sister (victim), who is a student of Class-X and her
date of birth is 11/04/2001, on 15/04/2018 at about 12:00 noon gone for
collecting her Class-X mark-sheet and did not return to house. Even after
searching and inquiring with the relatives, she was not found. Missing report
was registered at aforesaid police station at Crime No.169/2018 under
2 CRA-6095-2021
Section 363 of IPC. On 18/05/2018, prosecutrix appeared before the Police
Station Kotwali, Distt. Mandsaur and her statements were recorded. She was
sent for medical examination. It was found that on the date of incident she
was kidnapped by present co-accused Phoolsingh and Dashrath by Maruti
Van bearing registration number MP-14-CB-2334. Three other co-accused
persons were also involved in the crime and they have committed gang rape
on her in the farmhouse situated in Mandsaur, therefore, police has added
Section 366A, 376D, 376(2)(A), 342, 506, 109 and 370 of IPC and Section
5(g)/6, 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
and charge sheet was filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to this
impugned judgment submits that appellant is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this matter. The judgment passed by the trial Court is
bad in law. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right
perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement
of the witnesses. Impugned judgment suffers from surmises and conjectures
and has been passed ignoring serious infirmities and anomalies. It is further
submitted that with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, no reliable evidence
was adduced before the trial Court. The date of birth of the prosecutrix
11/04/2001 has been estimated by her parents. DNA test report (Ex.-P/47)
received from the FSL, Sagar has mix profile of four men. There was
previous enmity of co-accused Phoolchand with the brother of the victim
regarding wages and at the instigation of her brother, prosecutrix has falsely
implicated Phoolchand and him in the offence. To buttress the submission,
3 CRA-6095-2021
learned counsel placed reliance on the proceeding (Ex.-D/1 and D/2) and also
on Ex.D/11 written compliant made to the police. Prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court ignored
the material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case and has
recorded the finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant, which is not
sustainable. Appellant is aged about 23 years. He is in jail since 23/05/2018
and is suffering jail incarceration since then. The appeal being of the year
2021 is not likely to be heard finally in near future. There is fair chances in
favour of the appellant. Hence, under such circumstances prayer is made for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State, while supporting the judgment impugned submits that no
exception can be taken in the matter of suspension of sentence and grant of
bail, regard being had to the nature and the gravity of offence found proved
against the present appellant. He vehemently opposed the prayer on the
ground that ample evidence is available on record to prove the complicity of
the appellant in committing gang rape on a minor girl. FSL report is positive.
Her hymen has been found torn with tenderness on the private part. She has
supported the prosecution case and deposed before the Court that she was
kidnapped by the co-accused Phoolsingh and Dashrath along with other co-
accused persons. To buttress his point, learned counsel has referred para 19,
28 and 31 of the judgment along with Test Identification Parade, wherein
appellant has been identified. On the above premises, learned counsel for the
State submits that the judgment passed by the Court below is well merited
4 CRA-6095-2021
and no case for grant of suspension of sentence is made out.
Heard and considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
It is manifest from the record that prosecutrix has established
involvement of the co-accused Phoolsingh and Dashrath in her kidnapping
and she was handed over to the present appellant and other co-accused
persons Rahul and Raju, who have committed brutal gang rape on her. FSL
report supports the prosecution case. The contention of enmity cannot belie
the statement of prosecutrix, which is supported by other oral as well
documentary evidence.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no case
for grant of suspension of sentence is made out. Accordingly,
I.A.No.3541/2025 stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
