Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jai Singh Paraste vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-1248-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 1248 of 2023
(JAI SINGH PARASTE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 29-08-2025
Shri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.15378/2024-, which is third application under
Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant
of bail to appellant-Jai Singh Paraste, S/o Markush Paraste. First application
was dismissed as withdrawn and second was dismissed for want of
prosecution.
This appeal is filed by appellant being aggrieved of judgment dated
11/01/2023 passed in S.T. No.17/2021 by learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act, Dindori (M.P.), whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under :-
Conviction S e n t e n ce
Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment
fine deposited in lieu of Fine
details
366 IPC R.I. for ten Rs.500/- Additional R.I.
years for three
months.
343 IPC R.I. for six 100/- Additional R.I.
months for 15 Days
376 (3) of IPC/POCSO Life 1,000/- Additional R.I.
IPC/3/4(2) of Act Imprisonment for six months
POCSO Act,
2 CRA-1248-2023
6 POCSO Life 1,000/- Additional R.I.
Imprisonment for six months
506 Part-II IPC R.I. for one 200/- Additional R.I.
year for one month
It is submitted that story of prosecution is not corroborated. DNA
report shows that samples which were recovered reveal uninterpretable
profile, therefore, it is argued that in view of the DNA report, it is a fit case
for recording acquittal of the appellant.
Shri Arun Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant,
submits that whole story of the prosecution is improbable. The story is not
corroborated to any injury mark as has been deposed by lady doctor i.e. Dr.
Neetu Paraste (PW-7). Thus, the benefit of suspension of sentence be given
to the appellant.
Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State,
in his turn, submits that date of birth of the victim has come on record to be
04/09/2006. Incident is of January, 2021, therefore, at the time of the
incident, she was below 15 years of age. Her birth certificate as issued by
Secretary-cum-Sub Registrar, Gram Panchayat, Amni Pipariya is available
on record as Ex.P/6. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that
Dr. Neetu Paraste (PW-7) in para-2 of her testimony, had found injury on
the left knee of the victim, therefore, no indulgence is called for.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3 CRA-1248-2023
Victim has been examined as P.W.-2 whereas lady doctor i.e. Dr. Neetu
Paraste is P.W.-7. X-ray report as was advised by Dr. Neetu Paraste (PW-7)
is available on record as Ex.P/19 and as per this report (Ex.P/19), age of the
victim was found to be between 13 to 15 years. Thus, when victim has
supported the case of violation of her privacy and, in fact, the appellant's
counsel himself suggested to her that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was offered to her
in Panchayat for compromise and victim categorically stated that since her
privacy was violated, there was no question of any compromise, taking the
aspects of age and the allegation of violation of privacy, we are of the
opinion that it is not a fit case to extend the benefit of suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.No.11664/2024 fails and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
ts
