Sagar vs State Of M.P.

Also heard on I.A.No 5542/2020, which is the VVII application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the sole appellant Sagar Mohe.

The appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (1), 376 (2) (P) and (R) of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and sentenced and undergo 3 years R.I., 3 years, R.I. and 10 years of R.I. with default stipulation vide judgment dated 10.11.2016 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Badwani passed in Special Case No.51/2015.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in jail since the date of his initial arrest i.e. 09.06.2015 and he has undergone more than 5 years of imprisonment imposed against him. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents of like nature. The trial court failed to consider the statement of Rameshwar (PW-3) in para 21 was contradicted with the statement of Ganpat (PW-1). It is also submitted that the trial court erred in concluding the age of the prosecutrix and there was contradiction in the document filed by the prosecution regarding the age of the prosecutrix. According to the medical report no internal or external injuries were found in the person of the prosecutrix and no opinion has been given by the doctor regarding sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Babu Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC:1978 SCC (Cri) 133 at page 583, Raghuwar Singh @ Raghuveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2015 SCC online MP 4783, Bhagwan Rama Shinde V. State of Gujrat (1999) 4 SCC 421, Suresh Kumar V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 10 SCC 338: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1043.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the application and submitted that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was minor aged about 15 years and 7 months and she has stated her court statement that the present appellant committed rape upon her and this statement cannot be shattered in her cross-examination, therefore the trial court has convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and looking to that the earlier application filed by the appellant for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail has been rejected by this Court. Hence, he prays for rejection of the application.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that earlier, after scanning the entire record of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the application filed by the applicant under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed on merits and thereafter there appears no change of circumstances, in which this repeat application can be considered. Hence, I.A.No 5542/2020, is hereby dismissed.