Maheshwar Das Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 501 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 44 of 2020
  • Maheshwar Das Manikpuri S/o Thanwar Das Manikpuri Aged About 25
    Years R/o Village- Dhourabhata, Thana- Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-
    Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.                                        ---- Appellant

                                     Versus
  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Kasdol District Baloda
    Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.                                 ---- Respondent

23-06-2021 Mr. Deepak Jain, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 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 03.01.2020 passed by the

Special Judge, (Atrocities) Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar -

Bhatapara, CG in Special Session Case No. 08/2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that a long

standing relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix does not

make out a case of rape because it was a consensual affair. He would

submit that in the matter of long standing affair since 2014 to 2018,

report was lodged only when the appellant refused to accept the child,

which the prosecutrix claimed to be that of the appellant. He would

submit that the DNA report also is doubtful because the prosecution has

failed to place on record the date on which the appellant was taken out of the jail and the relevant documents with regard to collection of

samples sent for DNA test, has not been brought on the record. He

would further submit that the prosecutrix at the time of lodging report

was major and the only operating reason is because she is foisting

upon the appellant, a child delivered by him of which the appellant is not

his biological father.

On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that the

prosecutrix has stated that the appellant sexually exploiting her from

2014 to 2016, without informing that he was already married and when

he informed the prosecutrix that he was married, the prosecutrix left him

and thereafter again in 2018 he started contacting the prosecutrix

stating that he had left his first wife and ensured that he would accept

the prosecutrix as his wife. On this false pretext of marriage, again the

appellant entered into sexual intercourse, due to which a child was born

and the DNA report collected from the sample of the appellant and the

prosecutrix matches to show that the appellant is the biological father of

the child.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for

the parties, the evidence of DNA report and the evidence of the

prosecutrix regarding commission of sexual intercourse on false pretext

of marriage, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail. Therefore, the application is rejected.

List this appeal for final hearing.

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