Jafar Beg vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 429 Chatt

                                                                                   NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No. 161 of 2020

    Jafar Beg S/o Rahman Beg, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Tikrapara Near

    Khapri Talab, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Appellant

                                       Versus
    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - City

    Kotwali , Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Respondent

21.06.2021 Shri J.K. Saxena, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Ravish Verma, G.A. for the State/Respondent.

Heard on prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2019 passed by the

learned Special Judge POCSO (FTC), Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari

(Chhattisgarh) in Special Criminal Case No.33/2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant

is falsely implicated and he has not committed the offence of rape.

He would argue that the statement of the prosecutrix that the

appellant committed sexual intercourse is not supported from any

medical evidence because the prosecutrix is stated to be hardly 11 years of age and if at all any rape would have been committed, some

injury would have been definitely found in her private part, but hymen

has been found intact and no other injury has been found. He would

next submit that even according to mother of the prosecutrix what

was informed her by the prosecutrix was that the appellant had

shown her obscene videos and removed her clothes but not of rape.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutrix shows

that she was less than 12 years of age and in her evidence she has

clearly stated that the appellant had shown her obscene videos and

when she attempted to leave she was caught hold of, dragged and

her clothes were removed and thereafter the rape was committed.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and

particularly taking into consideration the evidence with regard to the

age of the prosecutrix and other evidence available on record, we do

not consider present to be a fit case for grant of bail, accordingly the

application is therefore rejected.

Post this matter for final hearing.

                         Sd/-                                      Sd/-
            (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                 (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                    Judge                                         Judge




Yasmin