Chattisgarh High Court
Radheshyam Banjare @ Radhe vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 57 of 2020
• Radheshyam Banjare @ Radhe S/o Puniram Aged About 19 Years R/o Maya Sagar
Talab Satnami Muhalla Ward Balooda, Police Station Balooda, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Balooda,
District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
14/06/2021 Shri Vivek Singhal, counsel for the appellant/s.
Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Dy.A.G. for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.1/20, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30/11/2019 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Atrocity), District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh in
Special Sessions Case No.24/2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that even if the entire
evidence of the prosecutrix (PW4) is taken as it is, there is no iota of
evidence involving the appellant in the alleged commission of offence of
rape by the co-accused - Ramnikhad Kenwat against prosecutrix. He
would submit that firstly, the prosecutrix, in her examination-in-chief has not
even whispered about the present appellant and in her cross-examination
also, she has clearly stated that police statement (Ex.D/2) containing name
of the present appellant - Radheshyam Banjare, was not stated by her in
the police statement. He further submits that the evidence only shows that
the prosecutrix has been stating regarding her relationship with the co-
accused without involvement of the present appellant and in her cross-
examination, she has admitted that at the time of alleged incident, present
appellant was not present.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the
manner in which the prosecutrix has stated regarding the whole incident in
her statement in Ex.P/5 and the manner in which the present appellant is
alleged to have accompanied the co-accused, both the appellant as well as
the co-accused are liable for punishment under the alleged commission of
offence and therefore, convicted.
Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the
parties, particularly taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecutrix
herself, we are inclined to allow the application (I.A.No.1/20).
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant
are suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his
appearance before the concerned Trial Court on 23/08/2021 and on all
such further dates as may be directed, interval being not less than 6
months, during the pendency of this appeal.
List this matter for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Deepti
