IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Cr. Appeal No. /2018

APPELLANT : Vikram
(IN JAIL)
//VERSUS//

RESPONDENT : State Of Madhya Pradesh

DETAILS OF APPLICANT :
APPELLANT : Vikram
(IN JAIL) Age 25 years
S/o Shri Deendayal,
R/o Moodla Chawal, Teh. Begumgunj,
PS Begumgunj, District Raisen (M.P.)

Whether in Jail: Yes he is in Jail.

DECLARATION: The case is not included in daily or weekly cause list

for this week

Conviction Sentence

Section Act Imprisonment Fine if Imprisonment

Deposited in Lieu of Fine

376 IPC R.I. for Life Rs. 1000/- Additional

Imprisonment
for 2 months
363 IPC R.I. for 7 year Rs. 1000/- Additional
Imprisonment
for 2 months
366 IPC R.I. for 10 year Rs. 1000/- Additional
Imprisonment
for 2 months

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 389(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,

1973

Whether any bail application Particulars of Bail Application

is Pending before or already
Disposed of by (if yes, give Case No. Date of Result
Particulars) Order
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Nil Nil Nil
India
Hon’ble High Court(s) Nil Nil Nil
Court(s) subordinate to High Session Trial No. 35/17 05.02.19 Convicted
Court(s)

The Applicant most humbly begs to submit as under:-

1. That, this is First application U/S 389(1) Cr.P.C. on the subject matter before this
Hon’ble Court.

2. That, no proceedings for suspension of sentence / conviction / bail is pending or

decided by the Supreme Court, any High Court or any court subordinate to the
High Court.

3. That, applicant is sole accused persons.

4. Facts of the Case:-

4.1 That, as per the story of the prosecution, on 06.07.17 at about 3 a.m. in the night,
when the complainant i.e. Dwarka Prasad woke up, he was stunned and dazed to
see that the prosecutrix was not in his house because of which the
complainant/father of the prosecutrix went to the place of his relatives to
enquire about tne whereabouts of the prosecutrix.

4.2 That, it is further asserted by the complainant/father that after some time when
the prosecutrix was not found so in this manner on a strong suspicion against the
appellant i.e. Vikram, an F.I.R. dt. 07.07.17 was lodged U/S 363, 78&8 of POCSO
ACT, 2012.

4.3 That, it is relevant to make reference that the prosecutrix was eventually
recovered on 22.08.2017 after having resided with the appellant i.e. Vikram for
more than 46 days during which the prosecutrix and the appellant traveled to
various places.

4.4 That, it is imperative to mention that 161 statement of the prosecutrix was
recorded on the very same day when she was recovered i.e. 22.08.2017.

4.5 It is appalling to mention that in the 161 statement of the prosecutrix, the
prosecutrix has categorically stated that the complainant/father i.e. Dwarka
 Prasad along with his brother Badri was consistently indulging in sexual activity
with the prosecutrix and was also tormenting the prosecutrix to a great extent
because of which she decided to leave her house and thereafter the prosecutrix
fled with the appellant i.e. Vikram out of her free will and consent. Furthermore
the prosecutrix has also stated that she resided with Vikram for 2 months in
different places and she has additionally stated that both of them traveled to
different cities i.e. Bhopal and Delhi. The aforementioned categorical submission
makes it lucid that a clear case of consent has been shaped into a case of rape.

4.6 That, it is pertinent to highlight that the abovementioned 161 statement makes it
perfectly clear that the prosecutrix fled to Delhi and Bhopal along with the
appellant out of her free will and consent, henceforth no case can be culled out
against the present appellant for the alleged act.

4.7 That, a bare perusal of the MLC i.e. exhibit P/37 leaves no room for doubt and
makes it crystal clear that there are no external or internal injuries found on the
body of the prosecutrix and furthermore were are no signs of any force being
exerted on her which clearly reflects the fact that prosecutrix was a consenting
party in the alleged act.

4.8 That, a bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix particularly paragraph 2
leaves no room for doubt that the prosecutrix has admitted the fact that she has
voluntarily fled with the appellant Vikram and furthermore she has also denied
all the allegations of rape as leveled against the appellant, henceforth no case U/S
376, 363, 366 is made out against the present appellant even if the entire
prosecution story is treated to be gospel truth.

4.9 It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence is cryptic, cavalier and
contrary to the ocular and documentary evidence available on record. It is
submitted that no case even for name sake is culled out against the appellant,
even if the entire prosecution story is taken on its face value. Be that as it may,
the Trial Court despite clear and axiomatic defence evidence being available on
record has convicted the appellants.

4.10 Hence the instant suspension on the following grounds:

5. Grounds:
5.1 It is imperative to make reference that impugned Judgment & Sentence is
cavalier and contrary to law as well as ocular and documentary evidence on
record inasmuch as the Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the glaring
contradictions, omissions and embellishments in the testimony of the
Prosecution Witnesses.

5.2 That, no case U/S 376, 363, 366 of IPC is culled out even if the entire prosecution
story is treated to be gospel truth inasmuch as the duel aspect of actus reus and
mens-rea are absent to constitute Offences stated supra.

5.3 That, a bare perusal of testimony of prosecutrix i.e.(PW-8) leaves no room for
doubt and makes it crystal clear that the prosecutrix has categorically stated in
her examination that she went out with the present appellant out of her own free
will and consent and furthermore she has also denied all the allegations of rape
as leveled against the appellant, henceforth np case U/s 376,363, 366 is made
out against the present appellant even if the entire prosecution story is treated
to be gospel truth.

5.4 That, it is of extreme significance to highlight that the prosecutrix i.e. PW-8 has
not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile and further it is
pertinent to mention that a clear case of consent has been shaped into a case of
rape henceforth it becomes clear as day of light that no case is culled out against
the present appellant.

5.5 That, a bare perusal of the MLC i.e. exhibit P/37 leaves no room for doubt and
makes it crystal clear that there are no external or internal injuries found on the
body of the prosecutrix and also there are no signs of any force being exerted on
her which clearly reflects the fact that prosecutrix was a consenting party in the
alleged act.

5.6 That, it is pertinent to mention that the prosecutrix was eventually recouped on
22.08.2017 after having resided with the appellant i.e. Vikram for more than 46
days and after having traveled to various places. Hence it is axiomatic that the
prosecutrix has falsely implicated the appellants as an afterthought.

5.7 That, a bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix particularly paragraph 2
leaves no room for doubt that the prosecutrix has admitted the fact that she has
 voluntarily fled with the appellant Vikram and looking to the age of the
prosecutrix and the categorical admissions made by her in her examination,
there is no room for doubt that the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the
appellant for extraneous and cavalier reasons.

5.8 That, it is noteworthy to point out that the medical evidence does not
corroborate the version as stated by the prosuectrix hence on this ground alone
the prosecution version ought to have been discarded.

5.9 That, the Trial court in a pre-determined and a pre-conceived manner has passed
the impugned order and has adopted mechanism of pick and choose to convict
the appellants and has turned a blind eye to the entire link of evidence which
axiomatically points towards the innocence of the appellant in the alleged act.

5.10 That, it ought to have been appreciated that the prosecutrix was an able bodied
women and a bare perusal of para 2 of PW-8 makes it clear that prosecutrix fled
with the appellant out of her own free will and consent, hence it was virtually
impossible for the appellant to have forced himself on the prosecutrix without
there being any external or internal injury being caused to her.

5.11 That, a benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant and the
trial court by not extending the doubt has committed grave error of law.

5.12 That, a perusal of testimony of the parents of the proseuctrix as well as the other
prosecution witnesses renders the entire prosecution story unreliable, hence
benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant, in the interest of
justice.

5.13 That, it ought to have been appreciated that the medical evidence on record
contradicts the version stated by the prosecution. That, the ingredients to cull
out an offence under any of the sections stated supra are conspicuously absent in
the instant case.

5.14 That, a bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix(PW-8) read in

conjunction with the 161 statement of the prosecutrix i.e. Exhibit P/8 leaves no
room for doubt that there are glaring, contradictions, omissions and
 embellishments in the version stated by the prosecutrix and she has
continuously improved and changed her version from time to time.

5.15 That the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and other material available on records in its right
perspective.

5.16 That the impugned Judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court resulting into
conviction and sentence of appellant is perverse in nature.

5.17 That he is permanent resident of District Raisen, hence there is no likelihood of

his absconding.

5.18 That the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the
directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Couri

An affidavit in support is filed herewith.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to
suspend the sentence and grant bail to the applicant pending disposal of the
instant appeal.

Jabalpur Counsel for the Applicant

Dated: (Sankalp Kochar)
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WP No. /2023

PETITIONER : ASHARAM MESHRAM

//VERSUS//

RESPONDENT : STATE OF MP

AFFIDAVIT
I, Asharam Meshram S/o U.L. Meshram, aged about 62 years, R/o Goutam kuti,
Shraddha Nagar, District Chhindwara (M.P.) do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as
under: -
1. That I am petitioner and well acquainted with the facts of the case. I have

engaged Shri Sankalp Kochar to file present writ petition and to argue into the

matter before Hon’ble High Court of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur.

2. That attached writ petition has been drafted on my instructions by my Counsel

and the contents thereof from paras 1 to end have been explained to me in Hindi

by my Counsel, I have understood the same. They are true to the best of my

personal knowledge and belief. I have not suppressed any material fact from this

Hon’ble Court.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, Asharam Meshram, the deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of this

affidavit from paras 1 to 2 are true to my personal knowledge and belief.

Signed and verified on this ….. day of Dec. 2023 at Jabalpur.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

WP No. /2023

APPELLANT : ASHARAM MESHRAM

//VERSUS//

RESPONDENT : State Of Madhya Pradesh

AFFIDAVIT
I, Asharam Meshram S/o U.L. Meshram, aged about 62 years, R/o Goutam kuti,
Shraddha Nagar, District Chhindwara (M.P.) do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as
under: -
oath as under: -
1. That I am the petitioner and well acquainted with the facts of the case. I have

engaged Shri Sankalp Kochar to file present writ petition to argue into the matter

before Hon’ble High Court of M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur.

2. That attached writ petition has been drafted on my instructions by my Counsel

and the contents thereof from paras 1 to end have been explained to me in Hindi

by my Counsel, I have understood the same. They are true to the best of my

personal knowledge and belief. I have not suppressed any material fact from this

Hon’ble Court.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, Asharam Meshram, the deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of this

affidavit from paras 1 to 2 are true to my personal knowledge and belief.

Signed and verified on this ….. day of DEC. 2023 at Jabalpur.

DEPONENT