Bablu Gujar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Heard on I.A.No. 11040/2020, which is an application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the appellant Bablu Gujar who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in all the three offences with fine and default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail from 29.06.2016. He remained in judicial custody for about 4 years and 8 months. Appellant has been falsely implicated. Further, the medical evidence does not support the ocular evidence of prosecutrix. The Court below has not considered the statement of the defence witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer for the State. He placed heavy reliance on paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, wherein the Court below has discussed the defence evidence.

Smt. Paliwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim took the same stand. She submits that the prosecutrix was a minor which fact is duly established before the Court below. If oral evidence is trustworthy, merely because it is not supported by medical evidence, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown to winds. The prosecutrix has deposed against the appellant with accuracy and precision. She was recovered from the home of the present appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

Considering the statement of prosecutrix and reasoning given by the Court below in the impugned judgment, at this stage, no case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, I.A.No. 11040/2020 stands dismissed.