Rajesh Chakradhari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 324 Chatt

                                                                                  NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                CRA No. 369 of 2019

    Rajesh Chakradhari S/o Shankar Lal Chakradhari Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
     Bhatgaon, Post Office And Police Station Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                           ---- Appellant
                                       Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District : Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh
                                                                         ---- Respondent

CRA No. 739 of 2019

 Mithlesh Kumar, S/o Shri Siyaram Tarak, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village-Ulba, P.S. Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Civil And Revenue District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Abhanpur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

15.06.2021 Shri Maneesh Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant - Rajesh Chakradhari in CRA No.369/2019.

Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Counsel for the Appellant - Mithlesh Kumar in CRA No.739/2019.

Shri Ravish Verma, G.A. for the State/Respondent. Heard on prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by both the appellants in the two connected appeals.

The appellants have been convicted under the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in Special Criminal Case No.215/2017.

Shri. Sharma counsel for the appellant - Rajesh Chakradhari would argue that the evidence of PW-1/prosecutrix shows that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied with the appellants and it is not a case of any forceful act on the part of the appellants in taking away the prosecutrix. He would argue that as far as age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the concerned head of the school who actually recorded the school entries has not been examined and the finding with regard to age is based on the evidence of the another head master, who claims to be present at the time of making an entry. He would further submit that the involvement of the appellant - Rajesh Chakradhari is not made out from the statement of the prosecutrix herself, because she has clearly stated in her cross examination that she was subjected to rape only by other accused/appellant Mithlesh Kumar and not by this appellant - Rajesh Chakradhari. He would further submit that even if in the FSL report there is nothing to show that any seminal stains were found on the clothes of the appellant - Rajesh Chakradhari.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant - Mithlesh Kumar would argue that the prosecutrix statement only shows that it is a case of consent and the manner in which the prosecutrix has been changing her statement with regard to involvement of the present appellant and co-accused shows that it is a false case. He would next submit that as far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned the evidence in this regard is highly doubtful.

On the other hand State counsel opposing prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the prosecutrix in her examination in chief and under 164 Cr.P.C. statement has clearly involved appellant - Mithlesh Kumar but also other accused - Rajesh Chakradhari. He would next submit that the age of the prosecutrix has been proved by the head master, who produced the original records of the school showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 11.11.2002 and she has clearly deposed in her examination that age was recorded in her presence by the other head master on the basis of the disclosure given by the father of the prosecutrix, who had brought another documentary evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. Learned State counsel would submit that the FSL report clearly involves Mithlesh Kumar and therefore in these circumstances the prosecutrix was minor, both the appellants have been rightly convicted.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties particularly taking into consideration the prosecutrix statement in what has been stated by her in her cross examination and that in the FSL report also, no seminal stains was found on the clothes of the appellant - Rajesh Chakradhari, as far as Rajesh Chakradhari is concerned, we are inclined to suspend the jail sentence. The bail application of appellant Mithlesh Kumar in CRA No.739/2019 is however rejected.

Accordingly, the bail application of appellant Rajesh Chakradhari in CRA No.369/2019 is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant/Rajesh Chakradhari shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be released on bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on 26th July,2021 and all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, till final disposal of this appeal.

Post the appeal for final hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-

    (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                 (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
              Judge                                          Judge
 Yasmin