Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amjad Pathan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 CRA-2181-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2181 of 2022
(AMJAD PATHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 24-03-2025
Mr. Ram Narayan Shah - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for State.
I.A. No.2617 of 2024 is an application under Section 430 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to appellant.
Appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed by
learned Eighteenth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Special Case No.65 of 2021,
whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to
undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 506(Part-
II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
The appellant has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for
having committed forcible rape with the minor prosecutrix, who is aged
between 15-17 years.
The case of the prosecution is that the father of the prosecutrix who
was initially arrayed as accused no.2 (later acquitted by the learned trial
Court) took the prosecutrix from the house of her mother to the house of the
2 CRA-2181-2022
appellant herein and stayed over night and during that period, the appellant is
stated to have committed rape with the prosecutrix.
The admitted facts of the prosecution's case is that the offence was not
reported immediately by the prosecutrix to her mother, allegedly on the fear
of reprisal from the accused. The F.I.R. was registered almost eight days
after the incident and the MLC reveals that the hymen is torn but is
inconclusive on all other parameters, as the relevant column reflects that the
prosecutrix had changed her clothes, washed her clothes, washed her
undergarments and also washed herself in the intervening seven days. The
vaginal swab and slides were sent to the FSL which did not detect any human
sperm or seminal stains on the slides.
The appellant has been convicted lastly on the basis of testimony of
the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the cross-
examination of the prosecutrix where she states that she has implicated the
appellant upon tutoring by her mother who told the prosecutrix to implicate
the appellant herein before the learned trial Court. Her statement with regard
to the identification of her father, according to the learned counsel for the
appellant, puts to doubt the veracity of her testimony before the trial Court.
She says that her father left her while she was very young and therefore, she
does not have any image of her father. Subsequently, when she was asked in
cross-examination as to how, she recognized her father, she says that on the
basis of a photograph.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that the statement of the
3 CRA-2181-2022
prosecutrix is sufficient enough when taken independently to convict the
appellant herein. He has further stated that the contradictions/statement
relating to implication of the appellant at the behest of the mother of the
prosecutrix, at best is only a minor aberration in the prosecutrix's statement,
who is a young girl and the same can be considered as natural. As regards,
the absence of human semen stains and sperms in the FSL report, learned
counsel for the State submits that the same was expected as the prosecutrix
had washed her clothes and undergarments and had washed herself.
However, the negative report of FSL does not go weaken the case of the
prosecution which is based on the unshakable testimony of the prosecutrix.
Without going deeply into the facts and circumstances of the case, in
view of what has been argued and considered by this Court hereinabove and
without reflecting on the merits of the appeal, I.A. No.2617 of 2024 is
allowed. It is directed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail upon his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
julie
