Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Sen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1143 of 2019
• Devendra Sen, S/o Shri Vishnu Sen, Aged about 24 years, R/o Village-
Bhainsamuda, Police Station- Dharsinva, District (Revenue and Civil) Raipur
(C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.).
---- Respondent
30.07.2021 Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the Appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2019 passed in Special
Criminal Case No. 175/2017 by the Special Judge, Special Court, Raipur
(C.G.) the Appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 342 of IPC RI for 03 months with a In default of payment of
fine amount of Rs.100/- fine amount additional RI
for 03 months.
U/s 376 of IPC RI for 10 years with a In default of payment of
fine amount of fine amount additional RI
Rs.1,000/- 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 and clinching evidence available on record. Referring to the
statements of prosecutrix (PW-01), her brother namely Jitendra Gaharwar
(PW-02) and her father namely Ramprasad Gaharwar (PW-04) learned
counsel for the appellant submits that on perusal of their statements and
admissions made by them during their cross-examination it appears that the
prosecutrix was a consenting party and she herself went with the appellant
inside the room. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, it has been
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that though according to the
entries of "dakhil khareej panjee" prosecutrix was below 18 years of age but
the author of the "dakhil khareej panjee" has not been examined and on what
basis entries have been made is not established. Further referring the cross-
examination (Para-09) of father of the prosecutrix, he submits that her father
had deposed that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was aged about 19-20
years, therefore, conviction is not sustainable. He lastly submits that the
appellant is in jail since 19.04.2017 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, statements of witnesses,
particularly considering the statements of prosecutrix (PW-01), Jitendra
Gaharwar (PW-02) and Ramprasad Gaharwar (PW-04) and further considering
this fact that the Appellant is in jail since 19.04.2017, for these reasons, I am of
this opinion that it will be proper to release the Appellant on bail during the
pendency of this appeal.
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 08.12.2021. 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
Vasant
