Chattisgarh High Court
Pradeep Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 509 of 2021
• Pradeep Ekka, S/o Shri Telesphor Ekka, Aged about 22 years, R/o Village
Bhitar Jabar, Police Station- Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj,
Civil & Revenue District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Balrampur, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj (C.G.).
---- Respondent
12.08.2021 Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Akhtar Hussain, 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 15.03.2021 passed in
Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 06/2018 by the Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Court (POCSO/F.T.C.), Ramanujganj,
District-Balrampur (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as
mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
u/S 363 of IPC RI for 05 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.5,000/-. amount additional
RI for 03 months.
u/S 366 of IPC RI for 05 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.5,000/-. amount additional
RI for 03 months.
u/S 06 of the RI for 10 years and In default of
POCSO Act fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.10,000/-. 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 also submits that there is no conclusive evidence
available on record, on the basis of which it can be said that at
the time of incident the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age.
Father of the prosecutrix namely Rambihari (PW-02) admitted the
fact that he does not know the exact date of birth of the
prosecutrix and was not prepared any birth certificate regarding
her birth. Head Master Basant Singh Pekara (PW-07) also
admitted the fact that at the time of entries in " Daakhil Kharij
Panjika" there was no any documentary evidence submitted by
the father of the prosecutrix with regard to age of the prosecutrix.
Looking to the above conviction is not sustainable. He lastly
submits that the appellant is in jail since 26.03.2018 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 going through the statements
of the witnesses particularly perused the statements of father of
the prosecutrix namely Rambihari (PW-02) and Head Master
Basant Singh Pekara (PW-07) with regard to the age of the
prosecutrix and further considering the fact that the appellant is in
jail since 26.03.2018. 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 its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
