Chattisgarh High Court
Nutan Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.738 of 2021
Nutan Sinha S/o Late Shri Chaitram Sinha Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Salhe, Thana Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
08/12/2021 Mr. Samir Singh, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy. A.G. for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2021, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2021, passed by the First
Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), District- Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Special
Criminal (POCSO) Case No.04/2019, appellant stands convicted and
sentenced for the offence as mentioned below, with direction that all the
jail sentences shall run concurrently:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 363 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 07 years and fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
06 months.
U/s. 366 of the Indian Penal R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Code. Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
06 months.
U/s. 376(3) of the Indian Penal R.I. for 20 years and fine of
Code. Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
06 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
has been wrongly convicted without there being any sufficient evidence.
Referring the statement of prosecutrix i.e. P.W.-2, it is being argued by the
counsel for appellant that on perusal of the statement of prosecutrix, it
appears that she was a consenting party and she has herself left her
parental house and joined the company of appellant and stayed for
months together with the appellant at various places. With regard to the
age, it is argued by counsel for the appellant that there is no any
conclusive evidence present, on the basis of which, it can be said that at
the time of incidence, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. Though
the entries of Dakhil Kharij Panji is available but mother of the prosecutrix
deposes that she got those entries made on the basis of presumption,
therefore, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution,
conviction is not sustainable and appellant is entitled to get the benefit of
bail at this stage.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel would oppose the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire records of
the trial Court, statement of the prosecution and other evidence adduced
by the prosecution minutely.
After perusal of statement of Rohit Giri Gosai (P.W.-01),
Headmaster of the school, entries of Dakhil Kharij Panji (Ex.-P/3),
admission register (Ex.-P/5) and declaration (Ex.-P/6) given by mother of
prosecutrix at the time of admission of prosecutrix in school, at this stage,
we are not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail is rejected.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge Judge
Monika
