Chattisgarh High Court
Rostam @ Bablu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 52 of 2020
• Rostam @ Bablu S/o Nijamuddin Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Budhibir, Police Station Chainpur, District Palamu (Jharkhand).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station
Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
with
CRA No. 127 of 2020
1. Mesraj @ Misraj Ansari S/o Alijan Ansari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Barbaspur, Dabgadi, Police Station Pratppur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Emam Hussain S/o Alijan Anari Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Barbaspur,
Dabgadi, Police Station Pratppur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Mubarak Ansari S/o Ahmad Ansari, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Barbaspur,
Dabgadi, Police Station Pratppur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station -
Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
25-06-2021 Mr. V.K. Pandey, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, PL for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 1/2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellants have been convicted under the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Learned
Special Judge (POCSO 2012), Pratappur, District Surajpur, CG in Special Cr.
Case No. 02/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the evidence of
the prosecutrix apparently proves that present in a case of love affair and the
prosecutrix had eloped with the accused/Rostam @ Bablu and then married
him. He would next submit that as far as the evidence with regard to age of
the prosecutrix is concerned, though Dakhil Kharij entries show her date of
birth as 01.07.2002, the evidence of her father (PW-11) on this aspect is
contradictory because he has admitted in his cross-examination that
01.01.2001 has been recorded in the Adhar Card on the basis of the birth
certificate and the daughter was born after about 9 years of marriage,
whereas his marriage was solemnized about 30 years before so, according to
this statement, the approximate age of the daughter as on 07.11.2009 (the
date of examination of the witness) was 21 years and as the incident is on
05.03.2019, the age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that in the
school Dakhil Kharij register the date of birth has been recorded as
01.07.2002 and the evidence of father (PW-11) is that on his declaration date
of birth was given and the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-10) has stated that
the age of her daughter is about 16 years and which is what has been stated
by the prosecutrix also.
Taking into consideration the submission learned counsel for the
parties, particularly taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecutrix
regarding the manner in which she eloped with the accused/Rostam @ Bablu
and further taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants and the evidence of father (PW-11) with regard to the date of birth
of the prosecutrix, we are inclined to allow suspension application filed by
appellant/Rostam @ Bablu in CRA No. 52/2020, Mesraj @ Misraj Ansari
and Mubarak Ansari in CRA No. 127/2020. All the appellants shall be
released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-
each along with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court, for their appearance before the concerned trial Court
on 02nd August, 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
Pawan Prajapati
