Nandlal @ Nandu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 709 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 601 of 2020

  • Nandlal @ Nandu S/o Mahesh Netam Aged About 23 Years Caste- Gond, R/o
    Village- Kohka, P.S.- Akladongri (Wrongly Mentioned As Ankladongri In Cause
    Title Of Impugned Order) District- Dhamtari, (C.G.)          ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Akladongri, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.)
                                                            ---- Respondent

29-06-2021 Ms. Aditi Singhvi, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Ravish Verma, GA 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 30.01.2020 passed by Special

Judge POCSO, (FTC) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, CG in Misc. Criminal

Case No. 21/2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that though the

prosecutrix states that she immediately informed regarding the incident

through husband, PW-3 (Aakanksha Gawde) has not supported the

prosecution version. Next submission is that the prosecutrix in her

cross-examination has admitted that there exists a dispute between the

family of the accused and the prosecutrix. The evidence of the doctor

(PW-9) does not show any significant injury on the private parts of the

prosecutrix. The appellant is a young man and is in the jail since 16.05.2019 therefore, as the appeal is not likely to be heard early, at this

stage, his jail sentence may be suspended.

On the other hand learned State counsel would argue that the

prosecutrix has clearly involved the appellant in the alleged commission

of offence and has stood firm in her cross-examination also. FIR was

promptly lodged. The prosecutrix informing the incident to her parents

has also been stated in their evidence before the Court. Doctor (PW-9)

has proved that the private part of the prosecutrix had become reddish

which fully corroborate the statements of the prosecutrix regarding the

sexual assault on her. Doctor (PW-20) - the Radiologist has also proved

that the age of the prosecutrix was between 12 to 14 years.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties,

and the material on record particularly the statement of the prosecutrix,

medical evidence and the evidence with regard to the age of the

prosecutrix, present 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