Chattisgarh High Court
Raja Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 323 of 2021
• Raja Ram, S/o Dharamjeet Gond, Aged about 23 years, R/o Village-
Sarasawati, P.S.- Vishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Office, P.S.- Dhourpur,
District- Surguja (C.G.).
---- Respondent
06.08.2021 Mr. A.N. Pandey, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Amit Singh, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2021 passed in
Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 45/2018 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO
Act), Ambmikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) the appellant stands
convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 363 of IPC RI for 04 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.500/-. amount additional
RI for 01 month.
u/S 366 of IPC RI for 05 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.500/-. amount additional
RI for 01 month.
u/S 376(2)(ढ) of RI for 10 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
IPC
Rs.1,000/-. amount additional
RI for 06 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the
judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on
record. He further submits that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in this case due to family dispute among the parties.
The incident allegedly occurred on 28.04.2017 and F.I.R. was
lodged on 21.04.2018 after one year of the alleged incident, delay
in lodging the FIR has not been duly explained. From perusal of
statements of the prosecutrix (PW-03), it appears that she was
the consenting party. It is further argued by learned counsel for
the appellant that with regard to age of the prosecutrix there is no
conclusive evidence on the basis of which it can be established
that at the time of alleged incident the prosecutrix (PW-03) was
below 18 years of age, the appellant is in jail since 27.02.2021
and during trial he was on bail and not misused the liberty
granted to him and appeal is likely to take some more time to be
finalized. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application.
Heard both the parties.
Perused the statements of the witnesses and other
materials available on record. After perusal of the statements of
the prosecutrix (PW-03) and other witnesses and considering the
fact that the matter was reported after one year of the incident
and further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since
27.02.2021 and during trial he was on bail and not misused the
liberty granted to him. Without further commenting on other
merits of the case, in my considered view, I am of this opinion
that it will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
On execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon
the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 07.12.2021. He shall thereafter
appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry
of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till the
disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
