Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-2810-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2810 of 2023
(SANDEEP PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 25-03-2026
Smt. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.968/2026, which is second application filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS/389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Sandeep Pael, S/o Nandlal Patel.
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 31/12/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mauganj, Rewa (M.P.) in SC. No.19/2021 whereby appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Imprisonment
Section Act Imprisonment Fine
in lieu of fine
5(m)/6 & POCSO & R.I. for R.I. for
Rs.10,000/-
376AB of IPC IPC 30 years 06 months
It is submitted that the appellant is innocent. Reading from the
testimony of victim (PW-1), it is pointed out that the victim fell down and had sustained injuries, as a result of which she blacked out. It is also pointed out that P.W.-1 admitted that before coming to Court, her parents had tutored her. Thereafter reading from the evidence of P.W.-2, it is submitted that Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 25-03-2026 17:51:06 2 CRA-2810-2023 P.W.-2 is hostile. P.W.-2 has admitted old enmity with the appellant- Sandeep Patel. It is also submitted that Sandeep had met with an accident in the year 2014 and was handicapped. Appellant-Sandeep's mental growth was retarded, therefore, present is a case of false implication. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that P.W.-2 has admitted that lady doctor i.e. Dr. Sunita Verma (PW-4) was her relative. It is further submitted that since Dr. Verma was relative to the victim's family, therefore, all the samples were manipulated. Hence, prayer is made to suspend execution of remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellant and to release him on bail.
Per contra, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and submits that DNA report (Ex.P/18) points out that the male DNA profile obtained from the Pyjama and Top of the victim was similar to the DNA profile obtained from the blood source of the accused. Reading from the evidence of Dr. Sunita Verma (PW-4), it is pointed out that this witness categorically deposed that vagina of the victim was torn. There was blood clotting and child was not in a position to cooperate, therefore, she was referred to Rewa.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Dr.Sunita Verma (PW-4) deposed that because of non-cooperation in the hands of the child victim, she had not prepared vaginal slides. Thus, an allegation sought to be made on the integrity of Dr. Sunita Verma (PW-4) by Smt. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, that she was related to the complainant party, is of no use because Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 25-03-2026 17:51:06 3 CRA-2810-2023 this witness had not prepared the vaginal slides and they were prepared by Dr. Neetu Dwivedi (PW-6).
Dr. Neetu Dwivedi (PW-6) deposed that in the internal examination of the victim, she had found swelling and redness on vulva, labia minora. There was laceration at 9, 11, 01, 02 'O' clock position. This witness i.e. Dr. Neetu Dwivedi (PW-6) admitted that she had prepared two vaginal slides, therefore, it is evident that Dr. Sunita Verma (PW-4) who is said to be relative of the victim, had not prepared any slide and there is corroborative and independent evidence of Dr. Neetu Dwivedi (PW-6).
As far as Dr. R.K. Pathak (PW-5) is concerned, who had examined the accused. No suggestion has been given to this witness that accused was suffering from any mental disorder. From the record, we are also not able to see any application moved before the trial Court to try the appellant as a mentally delinquent case rather than as a normal accused person. If these facts are taken into consideration, then despite lot of persuasion made by Smt. Gulab Kali Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no case is made out. Oral testimony is duly corroborated with medical testimony which is further corroborated with DNA reporting.
Accordingly, I.A. No.968/2026 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 25-03-2026 17:51:06 4 CRA-2810-2023 JUDGE JUDGE ts Signature Not Verified Signed by: TULSA SINGH Signing time: 25-03-2026 17:51:06