Nati @ Amar Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on I.A. No.22635/2019, which is s ixth application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 376 (2-G) and 506 (2) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant at the threshold submits that this is sixth application for this purpose and no application is previously rejected on merits. All the previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

By taking this Court to the statement of PW-7, statement of Doctor and factum of acquittal of one of the co-accused person, learned counsel for the appellant - Nati @ Amar Yadav urged that this appellant has been falsely implicated. The objector counsel has no objection, if bail is granted. The affidavit of objector is also on record. Lastly, it is submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix, for the first time in the Court identifying the present appellant, creates serious doubt on the prosecution story. More so, when no TIP was conducted.

The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. Although, it is not opposed by learned counsel for the objector.

Shri Pawar by placing reliance on the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar (2017) 2 SCC 51 has urged that any wrong in the investigation cannot be a reason to acquit the appellant. More so, when prosecutrix candidly deposed against the appellant. None conduction of TIP, in the present factual matrix will not create any dent on the prosecution's case.

Considering the serious nature of allegations which were found proved, he opposed the bail application.

We have heard the parties at length.

This Court on 05.01.2018 had passed following order :-

"I.A. No.6560/2017 and 18144/2017

The present are the repeat applications for suspension of sentence of appellant Nati alias Amar Yadav convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of IPC.

As per the prosecutrix, when she was coming back from Sharda Temple, Madanmahal, the appellant alongwith his accomplices, forcibly violated her. She has identified the present appellant as the one who has sexually assaulted her. Even the brother of the prosecutrix Dayaram (PW-7) has supported the statement of the prosecutrix. Vaginal swab has found semen.

In view of the evidence on record, we do not find any case is made out for suspension of sentence.

Applications (I.A. Nos. 6560/2017 and 18144/2017) are dismissed."

At this stage, there is no occasion for us to reconsider the same statements for the purpose of suspension of sentence because the co-ordinate Bench has already considered and rejected the similar application.

Considering the nature of conviction and factual background behind it, this is not a fit case for suspending the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. We deem it proper to record that counsel for the appellant should have fairly stated about the factum of dismissal of his previous application on merits on 05.01.2018. Indeed, he made a specific statement that none of his applications for this purpose were rejected on merits. We deprecate this practice, hence, I.A. is dismissed.

In view of this order, I.A. No.3111/2020 filed by the objector saying no objection, stands disposed of.