Iliyajar Tirkey @ Pappu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 244 Chatt

                                                   1



                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet

                                 Criminal Appeal No. 1519 of 2019

      Iliyajar Tirkey @ Pappu, S/o Shri Nanku Tirkey, aged about 28 years, R/o Village - Nandamali,
       P.S.- Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.)

                                                                                        ---- Appellant

                                                Versus

      State of Chhattisgarh, Through - P.S.- Darima, District - Surguja (C.G.)


                                                                                      ---- Respondent

10/06/2021 Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General for the State / Respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2019 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the

Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Session Trial Case

No. 32 of 2016, the Appellant stands convicted under Section 376 (2) (N) and

Section 376 (2) (L) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of

Rs. 500/- and RI for 10 years and fine Rs. 500/- respectively in default of payment of

fine 1-1 month additional S.I. to each all sentences run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is innocent and

has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being any sufficient

and clinching evidence available on record. Referring to the statement of PW-3

(Sonamtiya) mother of the prosecutrix, it has been argued by the learned counsel

for the Appellant that PW-3 (Sonamtiya) mother of the prosecutrix herself admitted

the fact that her daughter used to go with any person of the village on earlier

occasions also. He further submits that from the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, it is also established that Appellant is a married person and this fact

was known to the prosecutrix also. Therefore, act of the Appellant committed with

the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage is not acceptable. From the

statement of prosecutrix, it appears that she was the consenting party, therefore,

conviction of the Appellant in not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that the

aforesaid I.A. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail 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.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the

statements of PW-1 (Sonamtiya) mother of the prosecutrix and also the statement

of prosecutrix and that the Appellant is in jail since 29.04.2016, I am of the 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 14.12.2021. 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 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

Brijmohan/Prakash