Ramswaroop Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1042258
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnAug-29-2012
AppellantRamswaroop
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
1 cr.a.no.2572/11. 28.8.2012. shri v.k.shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. shri vivek sharma, learned pl for the respondent/state. heard on ia no.17424/12, appellant's second repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.1.2012. the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 376 of ipc for ri ten years with fine of rs.1,000/-. as per case of the prosecution the prosecutrix was working as labourer at the place of the appellant and during the cours.of such work she was taken away by the appellant inside of some place where after closing her mouth the alleged rape was committed by the appellant. the appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the trial court and the impugned judgment said that on proper appreciation and consideration the entire available evidence and exhibited papers of the charge sheet the gradients but it appears that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. in continuation he said that husband of the prosecutrix was working as partner with the appellant and due to some inter-se dispute between them the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter. by referring the deposition of prosecutrix, her husband and some other witnesses he said that on medical examination no injury or sign of violence was found on the person of the prosecutrix and in any case in presence of the husband, committing the rape on the prosecutrix by the appellant is not possible and prayed for suspension of remaining jail sentence. 2 shri vivek sharma, learned pl opposed the aforesaid prayer saying that in view of the deposition of prosecutrix it has been proved that she was working at the place of the appellant and by taking advantage of the same he committed rape on her for which sufficient other evidence is also available, and therefore, the appellant does not deserve for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail. having heard keeping in view the aforesaid argument, on going through the record specially the deposition of the prosecutrix bimlesh (p.w.3) and her husband along with other circumstance, i have found sufficient evidence against the appellant showing that by taking advantage of the situation of the prosecutrix as his labour he has committed the rape on her, consequently, i am not inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. hence ia no.17424/12 is hereby dismissed.c.c. today. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k.
Judgment:

1 Cr.A.No.2572/11.

28.8.2012.

Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17424/12, appellant's second repeat application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail, as his earlier application in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.1.2012.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of IPC for RI ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/-.

As per case of the prosecution the prosecutrix was working as labourer at the place of the appellant and during the couRs.of such work she was taken away by the appellant inside of some place where after closing her mouth the alleged rape was committed by the appellant.

The appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the trial Court and the impugned judgment said that on proper appreciation and consideration the entire available evidence and exhibited papers of the charge sheet the gradients but it appears that he has been falsely implicated in the matter.

In continuation he said that husband of the prosecutrix was working as partner with the appellant and due to some inter-se dispute between them the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter.

By referring the deposition of prosecutrix, her husband and some other witnesses he said that on medical examination no injury or sign of violence was found on the person of the prosecutrix and in any case in presence of the husband, committing the rape on the prosecutrix by the appellant is not possible and prayed for suspension of remaining jail sentence.

2 Shri Vivek Sharma, learned PL opposed the aforesaid prayer saying that in view of the deposition of prosecutrix it has been proved that she was working at the place of the appellant and by taking advantage of the same he committed rape on her for which sufficient other evidence is also available, and therefore, the appellant does not deserve for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.

Having heard keeping in view the aforesaid argument, on going through the record specially the deposition of the prosecutrix Bimlesh (P.W.3) and her husband along with other circumstance, I have found sufficient evidence against the appellant showing that by taking advantage of the situation of the prosecutrix as his labour he has committed the rape on her, consequently, I am not inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.

Hence IA No.17424/12 is hereby dismissed.C.C.

today.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge K.