Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anita Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1 CRA-8016-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8016 of 2022
(ANITA ADIWASI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-01-2025
Shri R.B. Tiwari - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Anoop Sonkar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.25236/2024, third application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2
Ranjeet Rai, pending the appeal.
2. Appellant No.2 Ranjeet Rai's first application for suspension of jail
sentence was dismissed as withdrawn and second was dismissed for want of
prosecution vide order dated 03.01.2023 and 30.07.2024 respectively.
3. Appellant No.2 Ranjeet Rai has been convicted for commission of
offence under Sections 376D of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, vide judgment
dated 29.08.2022 delivered by Sessions Judge, Panna, District Panna (M.P.)
in S.T. No.52/2019 (State of M.P. Vs. Anita Adiwasi and others).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant No.2
has been erroneously convicted by the learned trial Court as it has not
appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses in proper
perspective. It is submitted that prosecutrix in para Nos.4 & 5 of her
examination-in-chief has made specific allegation about preparing of video
of the sexual offence, mobile of the appellant No.2 and others were seized,
but no such video was found in their mobile and same is apparent from the
2 CRA-8016-2022
Forensic Examination Report. Prosecutrix has not made any allegation
against the appellant No.2 about committing rape. It is further submitted that
when no alleged video was seized or found stored or deleted in his mobile
and the mobile of other co-accused persons then it was not justified on the
part of the Sessions Court to convict him for commission of offence under
Section 376-D of IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred
the para No.4 of the evidence of PW-7 the husband of the prosecutrix in
which he has clearly admitted that his wife was annoyed with the appellant
Ranjeet as he had not given share of sell of diamond to her. Learned counsel
further referred the questions and answer on description sheet Nos.2 and 3 of
Dheeraj Tiwari (PW-7), in which he has admitted that he had asked his wife
not to lodge an FIR and has clearly admitted that his wife has lodged a false
FIR. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant has fair chance to succeed in
appeal. He has already undergone more-than 2 years and 5 months actual jail
sentence. Appellant has no criminal background. On the aforesaid pretext, it
is prayed that the appellant may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
opposed the grant of bail to the appellant No.2.
6. I have gone through the evidence of PW-1 prosecutrix, her husband
PW-7 and evidences of other witnesses on record. Having taken into
consideration the submission putforth by the learned counsel for the
appellant and the allegation made against him including the evidence on
record and the fact that there is no possibility of hearing of this appeal in near
future, I am inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant
3 CRA-8016-2022
No.2.
7. Consequently, I.A. No.25236/2024 is allowed. The execution of
jail sentence of appellant No.2 Ranjeet Rai is hereby suspended subject to
depositing the fine amount, (if not already deposited). It is directed that
the appellant No.2 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond to a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with a further direction
to appear before the trial Court on 08.04.2025 and also on such other dates,
as may be fixed by that Court in this regard during the pendency of this
appeal.
List this case in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Vin**
