Chhatrapal Barle vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3450 Chatt

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRA No. 273 of 2021

   • Chhatrapal Barle, S/o Ganesh Barle, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Amakuwa Chowk,
     Puraina, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                          ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Purani
     Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Respondent

02/12/2021 Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.

Heard I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

1. By the impugned judgment dated 12/01/2021

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Durg,

District - Durg, (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.182/2016,

appellant stands convicted and sentenced for the offence as

mentioned below :-

                        Conviction                      Sentence

             U/s 450 of the I.P.C.          R.I. for 7 years and fine of
                                            Rs.2,000/-    with   default
                                            stipulations.

             U/s 376(1) of the I.P.C.       R.I. for 10 years and fine of
                                            Rs.2,000/-    with    default
                                 stipulations.

U/s 324 of the I.P.C.           R.I. for 2 years and fine of
                                Rs.500/-     with    default
                                stipulation.

U/s 506(2) of the I.P.C.        R.I. for 2 years and fine
                                amount of Rs.500/- with
                                default stipulations.

U/s 25(1-b), (b) of Arms Act    R.I. for 1 year, and fine of
                                Rs.500/-     with    default
                                stipulation.

All sentences to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court

without their being sufficient and clinching evidence against

him. Referring to the statement of Dr. Manju Rathore (PW-7),

it is further argued that there is no injury found in the vital

parts of the body of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and according to

opinion given by the doctor, prosecutrix was habitual of

sexual intercourse. Thus, appellant has been wrongly

convicted by the trial Court. He would further submit that

appellant is in jail since 26/06/2016 and appeal is likely to

take some time. Therefore, it is prayed that appellant may be

granted benefit of bail.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would

oppose the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

appellant and would support the impugned judgment of the trial Court.

4. Having heard submissions of learned counsel for

the parties, evidence adduced by the prosecution, and on

perusal of statements of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and Dr.

Manju Rathore (PW-7), I am not inclined to release the

appellant on bail.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021 is dismissed.

6. Post the appeal for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Prakash