Raju Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Also heard on I.A. No. 4845 of 2021, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Raju Yadav arising out of judgment dated 21/1/2021 delivered in Special S.T. No.174/2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patan, Distt. Jabalpur (MP).

T he appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in custody from 1/12/2018 but as per prosecution story, the appellant allegedly sexually assaulted the victim. However, the Court below has adopted a procedure which is unknown to law whereby statement of Prosecutrix PW/2 is recorded twice on 29/11/2018 and on 6/9/2019. In the later statement recorded on 6/9/2019, the prosecutrix in her examination in chief did not support the prosecution story. However, in the cross-examination when her attention was drawn on the previous statement recorded on 29/11/2018, she deposed that she gave that statement under the pressure of police. By placing reliance on the order of Supreme Court in Narra Peddi Raju vs. State of A.P. Now State of Telangana decided on October 14th, 2019 Shri Shafiqullah submits that the prosecution founded upon such contradictory and shaky statement cannot result into conviction. The statement of prosecutrix was not of sterling quality and therefore, in absence of any clinching proof, the appellant could not have been held guilty. No DNA test was conducted. The appellant remained in custody for quite sometime. The final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.

Learned Government Advocate informed that victim is served and opposed the prayer on the basis of objection. He drew attention of this Court on the MLC and the FSL report.

Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 4845 of 2021 is allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of this appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed that appellant Raju Yadav be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 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 trial Court, Patan District Jabalpur on 8th January 2024 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per Rules.