Mohan Ram Painkra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 899 Chatt

                                           1



                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  CRA No. 551 of 2020

• Mohan Ram Painkra S/o Lachchhu @ Lekhram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Karmi
  Kawanrtoli P.S. Kushmi District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
                                                                           ---- Petitioner
                                         Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kushmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj
  Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        ---- Respondent

06.07.2021 Shri Pushkar Sinha and Shri Badruddin Khan, Advocates for the

Appellant.

Shri Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

This matter is heard through video conferencing.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on I.A. 02 of 2020, application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail.

Vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

17.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj,

District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in S.T. No. R-70/2010 the Appellant

stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

Conviction Section In default

Under Section 450 of R.I. for 10 years and In default of payment of fine the IPC fine amount of Rs. amount additional R.I. for 3 1,000/- months.

Under Section 376 of R.I. for 10 years and In default of payment of fine the IPC fine amount of Rs. amount additional R.I. for 3 1,000/- months.

Under Section 506(B) R.I. for 2 years and fine In default of payment of fine of the IPC amount of Rs. 500/- amount additional R.I. for 2 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 the

statements of prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband namely Sanjay Kumar

(PW-1), it has been argued by learned counsel that on perusal of their

statements entire story narrated by the prosecutirx seems to be suspicious.

There are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the statements of

both the above witnesses. Medical report also does not corroborate the

statement of the prosecutrix. Appellant is in jail since 05.09.2017 and appeal

will take sometime to be finalized. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant

may be granted benefit of bail.

On the other hand, Shri Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the State

opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and

supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

Trial Court.

Heard both the parties.

I have gone through the entire record and perused the statements of the

witnesses, particularly, the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband namely

Sanjay Kumar (PW-2). On perusal of their statements, without further

commenting into other merits of case, in my considered view it is a fit case for

grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 of 2020 is allowed.

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/- to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this

Court on 29.11.2021. 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 him by the said Court, till

the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Chandra