Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5465
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Kumar Vani, J
Deepak Kispotta – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRA No. 5668 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Manish Datt, Shri Chirag Mishra
For the Respondents: Ms. Rashi Dua
The testimony of a prosecutrix in rape cases is valuable and can result in conviction without corroboration if found credible.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 365, 366, 323, 376(1) - Offences against Women - Conviction under several sections with varying sentences imposed - The relationship was stated to be consensual, but injuries on the prosecutrix's body were considered in determining the credibility of her testimony. The court emphasized that the credibility of a prosecutrix's statement is paramount and does not get diminished due to prior relationships or alleged consent. (Paras 7, 8 & 11)
(B) Criminal Law - Principle of Reliability of Testimony - The court reiterated that the prosecutrix's evidence can stand alone for conviction if found credible and consistent, and emphasized the harm in dismissing such evidence without thorough examination. The court declined the appellant's request for bail, maintaining the conviction and sentences until the final hearing. (Paras 12 & 13)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 5668 of 2025 (DEEPAK KISPOTTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated :14-08-2025 Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Chirag Mishra -
advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Rashi Dua - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Heard on I.A. No.14696/2025, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant -
Deepak Kispotta.
This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 30.05.2025 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP) in ST No.700080/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:
Section and Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of fine
354 of the IPC RI for 4 years Rs.1,000/- RI for 6 months 365 of the IPC RI for 5 years Rs.3,000/- RI for 6 months 366 of the IPC RI for 5 years Rs.3,000/- RI for 6months 323 of the IPC RI for 7 months Rs.500/- RI for 6 months 376 (1) of the IPC RI for 10 years Rs.5,000/- RI for 1 month It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that it is a case of consent.
Relationship of the prosecutrix and the appellant continued since 2013. The FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix in the month of July, 2014. There is no FSL or Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA DNA report in the case. It is further submitted that though as per the report of Dr. Neeta Parasar (PW-4) there was some injuries on the body of the prosecutrix yet as per the evidence of the said doctor, they may be self inducted injuries. As per the prosecution, the incident is between 07.06.2014 and 28.07.2014, but relationship of the prosecutrix with the appellant continued since long but she never complained about any incident against the appellant prior to lodging of the FIR. The prosecutrix suppressed material facts. In fact, it is a case of breakdown of relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant. The appellant is in custody for about three months. He is ready to comply with the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. In this backdrop, prayer is made to suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail.
In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has relied on the decisions in the cases of Jagannivasan v. State of Kerala , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 294 ; Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar , (1998) 6 SCC 42; Suresh N. Bhusare and Others v. State of Maharashtra , (1999) 1 SCC 220; Avtar Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, (2023) 8 SCC 322 ; Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi , SLP (Crl) No.2793 of 2024 ; and Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra , SLP (Crl)
No.10044/2024.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, in her turn, submits that PW-4 (Dr. Neeta Parasar) found injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that evidence of the prosecutrix remained intact in her cross-examination. Earlier relationship of the prosecutrix and the appellant does not necessarily indicate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There is no inordinate delay in filing the FIR. Because of earlier relationship between the parties and social framework, no immediate FIR could be lodged. Considering the period of incident, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged belatedly. Therefore, at this stage, the appellant Signature Not Verified Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA cannot be granted benefit of suspension of sentence.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decisions relied upon by senior counsel for appellant. In the case of Jagannivasan (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the prosecutrix was keeping quite for six days coupled with the circumstances showing that meeting between the prosecutrix and the accused was arranged with their consent. After the sexual act, the prosecutrix had gone to the dance performance rather than go to her parents and inform them about the crime. Keeping in view the aforesaid cir
