Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chaurasi Baba Alias Lalchand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
1 CRA-11303-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11303 of 2019
(CHAURASI BABA ALIAS LALCHAND Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 13-10-2025
Ms. Renu Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on I.A. No.23974/2025 , 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 Chaurasi Baba @ Lalchand.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.12.2019
passed by Sessions Judge, Balaghat, District Balaghat (M.P.) in Sessions
Trial No. 139/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
as under:
In default of payment of fine
Conviction U/s. Imprisonment Fine
sentence
Imprisonment for
376(1) of the IPC Rs.25000/-
life
342 of the IPC R.I. for 01 year Rs.1000/-
506 Part-2 of the
R.I. for 03 years Rs.3000/-
IPC
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, aged about 81 years is that he is a Baba of
one ashram located in Village Narsinga, District Balaghat and has committed
rape with the prosecutrix, who is a married lady having a son, on the false
assurance of getting her ill health cured by performing witchery (flick) and
threatened her of dire consequences. He further submits that the trial Court
2 CRA-11303-2019
has convicted the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There
is no cogent and plausible evidence to show complicity of the appellant in
the alleged offence and due to political rivalry, 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 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including the
prosecutrix. Even, the key prosecution witnesses, Revaram (PW-7) & Dinesh
(PW-8) have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story.
Learned counsel further submits that the medical report (Ex.P/9) also does
not corroborate the allegation of rape. In the medical report the doctor has
clearly opined that no external or superficial injury is found on the body of
prosecutrix and so also no definite opinion can be given regarding the recent
sexual intercourse. 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.
3 CRA-11303-2019
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
including the prosecutrix, we are of the opinion that the 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.23974/2025 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
