Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phoolsingh @ Phoolchand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
1 CRA-4479-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 4479 of 2021
(PHOOLSINGH @ PHOOLCHAND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 26-08-2025
Ms. Sneta Bindal - Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Abhishek
Rathore - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
Heard on I.A.No.6063/2025, first 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 Phoolsingh @ Phoolchand S/o Nathulal Jatav.
The appellant stands convicted under Sections 363, 366(K), 376(D)
r/w Section 109, 342 r/w Section 34 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; 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
2 CRA-4479-2021
was registered at aforesaid police station at Crime No.169/2018 under
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 appellant and co-accused 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 appellant with the brother of the victim regarding wages
and at the instigation of her brother, prosecutrix has falsely implicated him in
3 CRA-4479-2021
the offence. To buttress the submission, 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 35 years. He is in jail since 22/05/2018 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 kidnapping a minor girl for the purpose of sexual abuse,
which she has been actually subjected to. 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 appellant 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
4 CRA-4479-2021
above premises, learned counsel for the State submits that the judgment
passed by the Court below is well merited 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 appellant in her kidnapping along with other co-accused
Dashrath and she was handed over to the other co-accused persons Rahul,
Raju and Kailash, 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.6063/2025 stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
