[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Bahore Mishra @ Babloo Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2025
1 CRA-6869-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6869 of 2025
(KRISHNA BAHORE MISHRA @ BABLOO MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 17-12-2025
Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar - Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu
Tiwari - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Himanshu Soni - Panel Lawyer for State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Also heard on I.A. No.17042 of 2025, which is first application under
Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/389(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to present appellant.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act,
Rewa in SC No.32 of 2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted under
Section 354 of the IPC, Section 7/8 of POCSO Act read with Section 354A
of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-
for each offence respectively with default stipulations.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present
appellant that the learned trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant
without proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. It is further
contended that the appellant is about 44 years of age. Although the
2 CRA-6869-2025
prosecutrix (PW-1) has supported the prosecution case in her examination-
in-chief, her testimony in cross-examination materially contradicts the
prosecution version. It is specifically pointed out that the FIR suffers from an
unexplained delay of one day. According to the prosecution, the incident
allegedly occurred on 26.01.2024 at about 11:00 PM, whereas the report was
lodged only at 08:00 PM on the second day. The prosecution has failed to
furnish any satisfactory explanation for such delay.
Moreover, the prosecutrix (PW-1) in her cross-examination has made
contradictory and inconsistent statements which belies the prosecution story.
She categorically stated that the report (Ex.P/1) was written by some other
person whose signature does not appear on the report. She further stated that
the report was drafted by her relative Krishna, who had come from
Allahabad; however, the said Krishna has not been examined by the
prosecution. She in paragraph-7 has categorically stated that no forceful act
was committed against her and that there were no marks or signs of any such
act on her body. She also stated that she had informed the police that she did
not wish to undergo medical examination.
It is also pointed out that the prosecutrix stated in her cross-
examination that on 26.01.2024, despite Republic Day being celebrated
throughout the country, her school was open and classes were being
conducted, which is inherently improbable and false. She further stated that
the accused had taken her to a mine and had himself called her father there;
however, when her father allegedly reached the spot, she had already
returned home. She further stated that when she was taken to the mine,
3 CRA-6869-2025
several persons were present there. These statements are mutually
inconsistent and render her testimony wholly unreliable. The statement of
prosecutrix is full of material contradictions and variations which render her
testimony doubtful. Similar is the statement of mother of the prosecutrix
(PW-2). It is further contended that Krishna, who allegedly drafted the FIR
has not been examined and the father of the prosecutrix (Baba), who as per
the prosecutrix's own testimony, was a material witness has also not been
examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that final disposal of this
appeal will take considerable time. He is ready to comply with the conditions
as may be imposed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, the remaining jail
sentence of present appellant may be suspended and he may be released on
bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for State has vehemently opposed the
prayer of bail and prayed for rejection of application.
Having heard the contentions of learned counsel for the parties,
perused the record and keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances
of case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A. No.17042 of
2025 is allowed. It is directed that subject to depositing the entire fine
amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, the remaining jail
sentence of present appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on
bail. The present appellant is further directed to mark his appearance before
the trial Court of this Court on 23.03.2026 and on subsequent dates as may
4 CRA-6869-2025
be fixed by trial Court in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
