Chattisgarh High Court
Dhal Singh Verma @ Karan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1656 of 2019
Dhal Singh Verma @ Karan S/o Dwarika Verma, aged about 26 years, R/o
Karhidih, Police Station - Mandir Hasaud, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Dharsiva, District: Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
12.07.2021 Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Amit Singh, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
None present for the complainant/victim even though notice have
been served upon the father of the victim who is the complainant.
Heard I.A. No. 02/2019, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.
By the impugned judgment date 23.03.2019 passed in Special
Sessions Trial No. 248/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court, Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.), the Appellant stands
convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 363 of IPC RI for 03 years and fine In default of payment of
amount of Rs.500/-. fine amount additional RI
for one month.
U/s 366 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine In default of payment of
amount of Rs.500/-. fine amount additional RI
for one month.
U/s 06 of RI for 10 years and fine In default of payment of
POCSO Act amount of Rs.1,000/-. fine amount additional RI
for two 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. Referring to the
statements of PW-01 i.e. prosecutrix, it has been argued by the counsel
that on perusal of her statement it appears that she was a consenting
party and she herself left her house and resided with the Appellant.
Learned counsel also submits that there is no any conclusive evidence
available on record on the basis of which it can be said that at the time
of incident prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. Though Dakhil Kharij
Panji is available but the author of the Dakhil Kharij Panji has not been
examined by the prosecution. He lastly submits that Appellant is in jail
since 08.08.2016 and trial is likely to take some more time. Hence, it is
prayed that his application may be allowed.
On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed
the bail application and submissions made in this respect.
Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.
After perusing the impugned judgment and statements of the
prosecutrix i.e. PW-01 and other evidence available on record, on due
consideration and considering the fact that the Appellant is in jail since
08.08.2016 and trial is likely to take some more time, I am of this
opinion that it will be proper to release the Appellant on bail.
Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the
appellants 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.25,000/- 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 16.12.2021. 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
them by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Saurabh
