Chattisgarh High Court
Khemeshwar Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 185 of 2020
Khemeshwar Dhruw S/o Haldhar Dhruw, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village
Charmudiya, P.S. Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Chouki- Birejhar Thana Kurud, District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
20.07.2021 Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G. for the State/Respondent.
None present for the prosecutrix/victim even though notice have been
served upon her father namely Panna Lal Yadav.
Heard on admission.
Admit.
Also heard on I.A. No. 02/2020, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.
By the impugned judgment date 24.07.2019 passed in Special Criminal
Case No.03/2019 by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Dhamtari, District:
Dhamtari (C.G.), the Appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 363 of IPC RI for 01 year and fine In default of payment of fine
amount of Rs.200/-. amount additional SI for 01
month.
U/s 366 of IPC RI for 03 years and fine In default of payment of fine
amount of Rs.300/-. amount additional SI for 03
months.
U/s 376-2 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine In default of payment of fine
& under Section amount of Rs.1,000/-. amount additional SI for 06
06 of POCSO Act 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
clinching evidence available on record. He submits that from the statements
of the witnesses it is well established that there was a love relationship
between the Appellant and prosecutrix and she was also a consenting party
and with her consent she visited and stayed with the Appellant at various
places. He further submits that with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, in the
statement recorded before the Trial Court of the Father and Mother of the
prosecutrix namely Rukmani Yadav (PW-01) & Panna Lal Yadav (PW-02)
both have admitted the fact that at the time of admission of prosecutrix in
primary school they have reduced the age of the prosecutrix by two years and
then entries in School Register were made therefore, it appears that at the
time of incident prosecutrix was about 19 years, therefore, conviction of the
Appellant is not sustainable. He further submits that the Appellant is in jail
since 23.12.2018 and appeal 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, the statements of the
witnesses namely Rukmani Yadav (PW-01) & Panna Lal Yadav (PW-02) and
further considering the fact that the Appellant is in jail since 23.12.2018 and
appeal 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 appellant
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 30.11.2021. 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
