Ranjeet Valmik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 6067 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ranjeet Valmik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2025

                                                              1                                CRA-9560-2024
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 9560 of 2024
                                            (RANJEET VALMIK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                          Dated : 26-03-2025
                                Shri S.S.Rajput - Advocate for the appellant.
                                Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                Heard on I.A.No.17065 of 2024 , first application under Section 389(1)
                          of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant -
                          Ranjeet Balmik.

                          2.   This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed in
                          SC No.109/2021 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
                          (POCSO Act, 2012) Guna, whereby the appellant has been convicted under
                          Sections 451, 354, 323 of IPC and Sections 9m/10 of the POCSO Act and
                          sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, 2 years RI with fine
                          of Rs.500/-, one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 5 years RI with fine of
                          Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.
                          3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has wrongly
                          convicted the appellant without proper appreciation of facts of the case as

                          well as evidence on record. The appellant has remained in custody for 9
                          months and 12 days. On merits, it is submitted that FIR contains the fact that
                          at the time of incident, prosecutrix was alone at the house while in the
                          statement para 2 prosecutrix has stated that her younger sister was present
                          with her at the time of incident having the age of 7 years. It is also submitted
                          that elder sister of the prosecutrix stated that she was not present at the time


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 3/27/2025
10:08:43 AM
                                                             2                             CRA-9560-2024
                          of incident, but when she returned to home, she found that her father and the
                          youngest sister were sleeping. It is also reflected from the statement of this
                          witness that in front of the house of the prosecutrix there is a grocery shop
                          and owner of the grocery shop remains present in the shop, but no FIR has
                          been lodged on the date of offence and such witnesses, who are important,
                          are not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. FIR has
                          been lodged on the next date of the incident and no explanation of such delay
                          has been given. It is also submitted that having regard to the various
                          contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses,
                          applicant is entitled for grant of suspension of sentence.
                          4.     Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the

application on the ground that prosecutrix herself was 11 years old at the

time of incident and her younger sister was 7 years old, therefore, at the time of incident, looking to the nature of the crime committed, she did not inform anyone, but when her family members returned to home, she informed to them and thereafter FIR has been lodged. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix sustained some injuries which are described by Dr. P.K.Gupta (PW-6). Therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix is supported by the evidence of other important witnesses as well as medical evidence and FIR. The contradictions and omissions are natural and does not render testimony of witnesses doubtful. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of suspension of sentence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the rival

3 CRA-9560-2024 parties as well as attending facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration suffered by the appellant, without commenting on merits of the case, at this stage, no ground is made out to allow I.A.No.17065 of 2024. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE

ms/-