Rinku Jatav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

Heard on I.A. No.18670/2019, second application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

First application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.05.2019.

The appellant stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(kha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of

Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation, under Section 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default

stipulation and under Section 506-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this repeat application has been filed on the ground that the appellant had already undergone more than

3 years in judicial custody. It is submitted that the appellant was posted as Forest Guard. Marriage of the prosecutrix was fixed with the appellant,

thereafter she developed friendship with another person and falsely implicated the appellant in this case, this fact comes in cross-examination. It is

further submitted that this appeal will take considerable time for its final adjudication, therefore, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail

to the appellant.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State vehemently opposes the application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of the prosecutrix, in which she has categorically stated that, on the date of

incident she was going with one Vineet Kushwaha. The appellant met her on the same, then the appellant took both of them in the office, where the

appellant beaten Vineet Kushwaha in a room, thereafter he expelled Vineet Kushwaha out of the room, and locked the room from inside and forcible

committed rape upon the prosecutrix.

Perused cross-examination.

It is not reflected anywhere that previously prosecutrix was engaged with the appellant. She clearly stated that she saw the appellant first time at the

time of incidence and during Test Identification Parade she identified the appellant.

Perused DNA report. DNA report clearly reveals that allele of DNA profile of the appellant was found in the smear slide of prosecutrix.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie there is a strong case found against the appellant. In these circumstances, this

court is not inclined to take a different view as taken in previous order.

Consequently, I.A. No.18670/19 filed by the appellant Rinku Jatav is hereby dismissed.

List this appeal for final hearing in due course.