RAJU YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 366-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.500.00 and Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with fine of Rs.2000.00 with default stipulations.

(3.) 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.