Chattisgarh High Court
Bramhadev Parde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Cr.A. No.1553 of 2018
• Bramhadev Parde S/o Shri Manohar Parde Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Nagbel, Police Station Shobha, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Chowki
Dudhwa, Police Station Narharpur District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
16/07/2021 Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2020, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
This is second application file for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail. The earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn on
22.11.2018 and liberty was granted to the applicant to file repeat
application after two years.
Appellant has been convicted by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 20/08/2018, passed in Special Criminal Case
(POCSO Act) No.59/2017, by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)
and Special Judge, place- North-Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) with a direction to
run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 363 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 03 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
03 months.
U/s. 366 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 06 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
06 months.
U/s. 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for 03 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
03 months.
U/s. 06 of POCSO Act. R.I. for 10 years & 01 month and
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 01 year additional
R.I.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction
against the appellant is erroneous and against the provisions of law. The
prosecutrix (P.W.-1) has clearly made admissions in her cross-
examination suggesting that she had feeling of love for the appellant and
she also wanted to reside with the appellant. The prosecution has failed
to prove that the prosecutrix was of age below 18 years, therefore, the
appellant has a good case for argument. Hence, it is prayed that this
application may be allowed and the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that
the age of the prosecutrix, according to the school register, was below
16 years, which has also been confirmed by the report of the radiologist.
The prosecutrix has clearly supported the prosecution case in her
examination-in-chief, therefore, there is no case for suspesion of
sentence and grant of bail.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court.
Considered on the submissions. After perusing the deposition of
the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) and another witnesses in the case, I am of this
view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Therefore, the present application is rejected.
Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2020, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is rejected.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
