Balram @ Manglu Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3230 Chatt

                                                                     NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          Cr.A. No. 1561 of 2019


• Balram @ Manglu Ram, S/o Tulsiram Vishwakarma, Aged About 28
  Years R/o Village - Ghodsoda, Patelpara, Police Station - Makdi, District
  - Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

                                                             ---- Appellant


                                 Versus


• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Makdi, District -
  Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Respondent

18/11/2021 Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Counsel for the

appellant.

Shri Soumya Rai, P.L. for the State/Respondent.

Heard I.A. No. 01/2020, application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

1. By the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2019

passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, District - Kondagaon, (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case

SC/ST (PA) Act 1989 No.56/2016, appellant stands convicted

and sentenced for the offence as mentioned below :-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 376(1) of the I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulations.

     U/s 506-B of the I.P.C.    R.I. for 1 year and fine of
                                Rs.5,000/-    with  default
                                stipulations.

             Both sentences to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial

Court without there being any clinching evidence against him.

He would further submit that on perusal of statements of

prosecutrix (PW-5) and her friends namely Gunmati (PW-2)

and Devki (PW-8), it appears that prosecutrix was the

consenting party and she herself had joined the company of

the appellant and went to his house and with her consent, the

alleged act was committed. Prosecutrix was the consenting

party, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

He would further submit that appellant is in jail since

28.06.2016 and had already completed more that 5 ½ years

out of 7 years of jail sentences awarded by the trial Court.

Therefore, it is prayed that appellant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State opposes the same and supported the

judgment of conviction. He would further submit that there are sufficient evidence available on record on the basis of which

trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

perused the record of the trial Court minutely, gone through

the statements of the witnesses and other material available

on record.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case, argument advanced by the

counsel for the parties, and evidence adduced by the

prosecution, particularly on perusal of statement of the

prosecutrix (PW-5), without further commenting on other

merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on

bail.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed.

7. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence

imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during

the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail

on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-

with one solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the

concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry

of this Court on 20.01.2022. He shall thereafter appear before

the trial Court on a date given by the Registry of this Court

and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent

dates as are given to him by the said Court, till disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Prakash