Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampyare Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
1 CRA-9010-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9010 of 2019
(RAMPYARE PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 13-10-2025
Shri Akhil Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on admission.
Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.
I.A. No.5004/2024 moved by the appellant for temporary suspension
of sentence and grant of bail has rendered infructuous. Accordingly, it is
dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
Heard on I.A. No.16873/2022 , first application under Section 389(1)
of Cr.P.C./Section 430(1) of BNSS, for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail filed on behalf of appellant Rampyare Prajapati.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.09.2019
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur in
Special S.T. No. 77/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine sentence
376 (2) of IPC Imprisonment for life Rs.1000/- Additional R.I. for 01 year
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has
wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. As per prosecution case, the
allegation against the appellant is of committing rape with the prosecutrix, a
minor girl aged about 16 years on the false assurance of getting her illness
cured by performing witchcraft. He further submits that there is no cogent
2 CRA-9010-2019
and plausible evidence to show complicity of the appellant in the alleged
offence. Merely, on the basis of presumption and assumption, the appellant
has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Even, there are major contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted
that the appellant has no criminal antecedents. The appellant has already
undergone more than 07 years of incarceration. The prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is of the year 2019 and
there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in near future. He is
ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and
conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the
application for suspension of sentence may be allowed extending benefit of
doubt in favour of appellant.
4 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the
application for suspension of sentence and supported the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 . Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of
incarceration already undergone by the appellant and the fact that there are
material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix, we are of the opinion that the
3 CRA-9010-2019
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant can
be considered.
7. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case,
I.A. No.16873/2022 is allowed.
8 . It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already
deposited, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended
and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the 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 Registry of this Court on 29.01.2026 and on such other dates, as
may be fixed by the Registry in this regard during pendency of this appeal.
9. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH) (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
