Amit Kumar @ Amitabh Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3471 Chatt

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                             CRA No. 1550 of 2018

    Amit Kumar @ Amitabh Gond S/o Malaram Gond, aged about 22 years,
    R/o Village- Aari, Police Station- Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon,
    Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station-
    Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondent

03.12.2021 Mr. S.S. Baghel, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Ravish Verma, G.A. for the State/Respondent.

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

sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

This is the second bail application of the appellant.

First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order

dated 01.06.2020 with liberty to revive the same after one year,

passed in this appeal.

By the impugned judgment date 23.08.2018 passed in

Special Criminal Case No.29/2017 by the learned Upper Session

Judge (FTC) District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) the Appellant stands

convicted as mentioned below:

   Conviction                Sentence               In Default

U/s 363 of IPC        RI for 5 years with a In default of payment
                      fine    amount     of of     fine    amount
                      Rs.2,000/-            additional SI for 03
                                            months.

U/s 366 of IPC        RI for 5 years with a In default of payment
                      fine    amount     of of     fine    amount
                      Rs.2,000/-            additional SI for 3
                                            months.

U/s 376 (2) of IPC    RI for 10 years with a In default of payment
                      fine    amount      of of     fine    amount
                      Rs.5,000/-             additional SI 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. It

has been submitted by counsel for the appellant that it is a matter

of consent, at present there is no any conclusive evidence which

shows that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, therefore,

the conviction is not sustainable. He further submits that the

Appellant is in jail since 24.07.2017 and appeal is likely to take

some more time. Hence, it is prayed that his application be

allowed.

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has

opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect.

He submits that according to the ossification test report and entries

made in the school register, it appears that she was below 18

years of age, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly convicted

the appellant.

Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial

Court.

After perusing the impugned judgment, statements of

witnesses and taking into consideration the statement of victim girl

(PW-2) and Dr. Rajesh Patel (PW-11) and further considering the

school certificate, I am of this opinion that it is not a fit case to

release the Appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Saurabh