Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Sori vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1575 of 2016
Mukesh Sori, S/o Pawan Sori, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Devarsur, Police
Station-Mohla, District-Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police-Station-Mohla,
District-Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
11/08/2021 Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Alok Nigam, Govt. Advocate for the State.
Heard on IA No.1 of 2021, repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 12/08/2016 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge(F.T.C.) and Special Judge(POCSO), Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon(C.G.) in
Special Sessions Trial No.- 42/2015, the Appellant stands convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 363 of IPC. : R.I. for 7 years & fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine further 6 months
additional rigorous imprisonment.
U/s 366 of IPC. : R.I. for 10 years & fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine further 6 months
additional rigorous imprisonment.
U/s 376(2)(<) of IPC. : R.I. for 10 years & fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine further 6 months
additional rigorous imprisonment.
U/s 6 of POCSO Act : R.I. for 10 years & fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine further 6 months
additional rigorous imprisonment.
Earlier bail application filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 22.11.2018 .
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the
applicant is erroneous and without the presence of the evidence of prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. The statement of prosecutrix PW-1 itself shows, that after the incident of
forceful physical relation with her, she was taken by the applicant to the house of his
maternal uncle and subsequent to that he took her to Nagpur with him for few days. During
all the time, the prosecutrix never objected and never made any attempt to escape. The
examining doctor Seema Thakur PW-14 has also stated, that she did not found any injury on
the body of the prosecutrix, hence, the conviction is bad in law. It is submitted that the
applicant is in jail since 3.3.2015 and, thus, he has completed more than 6 ½ years in jail .
There is no likelihood of this appeal to come up for final hearing in near future, therefore, the
appellant is hopeful to succeed in this appeal, hence, it is prayed that he may be released
on bail during the pendency of trial.
On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application
and submits that there is a direct statement of prosecutrix PW-1 alleging offence of rape
against the appellant. Further she was a minor girl which has been proved by the
prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the application be rejected.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.
Considered on the submissions made by the counsels and perused the record of the
trial Court. After due consideration, I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the
appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
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 him
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
08/11/2021. 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.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nisha
