[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Janghela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
1 CRA-2897-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2897 of 2025
(RAKESH JANGHELA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 15-12-2025
Shri Ravindra Nath Chaturvedi - Advocate for appellant.
Smt. Nupur Dhamija - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.6772/2025, first application under Section 430
of BNSS / 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail
to present appellant.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 11.02.2025 passed in
SC No.21/2022 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Mandla, District
Mandla, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Sections
366 and 506-B of IPC Section 9(M) r/w 10 and and sentenced to undergo
five years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/-, one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and
five years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/-respectively, with default stipulations.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of present
appellant that the present appellant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case. The FIR has been lodged on the next day of the date
of incident i.e. 12.04.2022. When the prosecutrix has been recovered, no FIR
has been lodged on the same day. The delay of one day in lodging the FIR
renders the veracity of FIR suspicious. It is also submitted that it is well
settled that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained, then it may be fatal for
2 CRA-2897-2025
the prosecution. It is further submitted that Dilip Banjara and Santosh Bhade,
both witness were present at the time of alleged incident and recovery of the
prosecutrix, but they have not been examined on behalf of the prosecution
and no explanation in this regard has been put forth by the prosecution. It is
also submitted that there was a ceremony of Jawara in the town. There were
two ways. Since one was blocked because of that ceremony, therefore, on the
second way available, the present appellant taken the prosecutrix. He has
been falsely implicated. There is a counter FIR which has been lodged on
17.04.2022 at the instance of present appellant. There is no criminal
antecedents of present appellant. He has a good case on merit. The appellant
is ready to comply with the conditions as may be imposed by the Court. The
final disposal of this appeal will take considerable time. Keeping in view
these facts, the remaining jail sentence of present appellant may be
suspended and he may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for State has opposed the application on
the ground that the prosecutrix at the time of offence was only 11 years and 7
months and the offence committed by the present appellant has categorically
revealed from the statements of the witnesses of prosecution. Though there
may be some contradictions, omissions and variations in the statements of
the witnesses but that has been taken care of by the learned trial Court and
they are not material and per se on the anvil of such variations, their
statements do not render the prosecution case in its entirety doubtful. The
prosecution case is on strong basis and the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced appropriately to the present appellant. In view of
3 CRA-2897-2025
the aforesaid submissions, its prayed that the application be rejected.
Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
On perusal of the record, the contentions as put forth on behalf of the
appellant does not seem to be convincing at this stage. Keeping in view the
attending facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the
prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses have alleged against the present
appellant, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case in which,
the present appellant can be granted the benefit of suspension of sentence.
Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.6772/2025 is rejected.
List for final hearing in due course.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ac/-
