AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on I.A.No.16814/2019, which is repeat (second) application filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Devideen Ahirwar.
T he appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(I) of IPC and Section 5(d)(6) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- on each count, with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his previous application (I.A.No.11765/2019) was dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant has been falsely implicated. The incident of rape had taken place on 17.3.2017, whereas FIR is belatedly lodged on 19.3.2017. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution. He placed reliance on statements of Harprasad Dumar (PW/2), Keshkali (PW/3) and Madhu Patel
(PW/10). It is urged that Nazri Naksa (spot map) does not contain signature of relevant witnesses. Section 164 Cr.P.C.'s statement of victim does not contain her signature. DNA report is not against the present appellant.
The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the basis of statement of prosecutrix, the statement of Dr. Bhawna Tripathi (PW/7), which shows that private part of the victim was having injuries.
We have heard the application.
In view of the statement of prosecutrix, coupled with the statement of Dr. Bhawna Tripathi (PW/7), no case is made out at this stage for suspension of sentence. The appellant is held guilty for committing rape on a small girl aged about 11 years and two months. Prima facie DNA report on which heavy reliance is placed, does not inspire confidence in view of the finding Resultantly, I.A. No.16814/2019, is dismissed.