Govind @ Dinesh Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on I.A.No.2710/2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Govind @ Dinesh Yadav.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix.  The prosecutrix was allegedly forcibly taken away by the appellant and other persons on 04.10.2017. By taking this court to the statement of the prosecutrix it is urged that she deposed that she was unconscious but in the second breath she stated that she was not unconscious to the extent she cannot recollect what had happened during the time she was unconscious.  Thus statement of prosecutrix is untrustworthy. She alleged remained with the appellant and other persons for about three months.  She, during this period, did not raise any alarm or ask for any help from any person.   When she allegedly came out of the said place of Gairatganj, she could recollect the cell phone number of her husband gave a call to him by taking help of some girl.  However, the prosecutrix could not recollect the cell phone number of her husband during the cross-examination in the court. The person who lodged the F.I.R (P.W.2) stated that it is lodged at the instance and as per direction of the police. The Gumshudgi report is highly doubtful. As per medical witness (P.W.3), no internal injuries were found on the private part of the prosecutrix. The police made no efforts to inquire from the place where the victim was kept. The husband of victim (P.W.7) categorically admitted that she, on previous occasions, also left the house and remained elsewhere for few months. The story of the prosecution has many inconsistencies including a serious inconsistency regarding presence of victim's husband at Gairatganj when she was taken from there.  The victim deposed that at Gairatganj, from where she came to Satna, a lady police officer was also present but it is strange that she did not take any help of that lady police officer and lodged the report at that place itself. For these cumulative reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant deserves the benefit of suspension of sentence because final hearing of this appeal will take its own time.

The  prayer  is  opposed  by  Shri Ajay  Tamrakar,  P.L.  for  the respondents/State by taking this court to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment.

Considering  the  aforesaid  arguments  of  learned  counsel for  the appellant coupled with the fact that final hearing of this appeal will take its own time, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, I.A is allowed.

It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) alongwith two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court, appellant Govind @ Dinesh Yadav, be released on bail with a direction to appear before this court on 30.06.2020 and on all further dates as may be directed by this court.

C.C as per rules.