RAHUL NAGAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government Advocate for the Respondent/State. I.A. No.12702 of 2022 an application under Sec. 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to Appellants - Rahul Nagar and Nagendra Nagar is taken up.

(2.) The Appellants have been convicted under Sec. 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 05 years and fine of Rs.1000.00, under Sec. 376(2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.5000.00 with default stipulations.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants urged that as per prosecution story, on 3/6/2017 at around 8.30 p.m. both the Appellants allegedly forcibly taken the victim with them from Maihar to a station near Mumbai. They put up wet handkerchief with chloroform in order to take the victim with them. During this period when victim is with them the Appellants allegedly sexually assaulted her. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that victim herself came back on 5/6/2017 to her house. She along with her father reported the incident to the local Police Station on 9/6/2017. It is unbelievable that between 3/6/2017 (date when Appellants allegedly taken her away) to 5/6/2017 the victim travelled to Mumbai and came back to Maihar. In medical report no findings were given establishing commission of rape or sexual assault. The FSL report is negative. The victim in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C did not depose anything about commission of rape. The victim was subjected to cross-examination on the basis of her statement under Sec. 164. In view of clear omission /contradiction, her Court statement is not trustworthy and without there being any corroboration, the Court below has committed an error in convicting the Appellants.