Prakash Gupta - (1.) This suspension of sentence application has been flied under Section 389 CrPC.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 366, 376 and 450 of IPC and sentenced as under: i) Under Section 366 IPC: To undergo 7 year's SI with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI. ii) Under Section 376 IPC: To undergo 10 years' SI with fine of Rs.25000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 month's SI iii) Under Section 450 IPC: To undergo 7 years' SI with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI He further submits the there is a delay of 10 days of lodging the FIR and the said delay in lodging the FIR was not explained. He further submits that it is a case of consent, the prosecutrix lived with the appellant for about 1 month but she did not raise any alarm. The prosecutrix is a major and married woman. She is having 4 children. He also submits that as per the statement of the Doctor, no injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The appellant was on bail during trial, hence the sentence awarded to the accused appellant may kindly be suspended.
(3.) Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.;