Panbudi @ Mukhiram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3344 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                        Order Sheet
                                   CRA No. 1095 of 2021
      Panbudi @ Mukhiram Sahu S/o Jhaduram Sahu Aged About 65 Years Sakin-
       Thakurdeva, Chouki- Malhar, Thana- Masturi, District- Bilaspur
       (Chhattisgarh).
                                                                          ---- Appellant
                                           Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Aarakshi Kendra Masturi, District- Bilaspur
       (Chhattisgarh).
                                                                    ---- Respondent

29/11/2021 Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Vinod Tekam, PL for the State/Respondent.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No. 01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 04/09/2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), District Bilaspur(C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 08/2019, the Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 and Section 376 AB / 511 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 4,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being any clinching evidence available on record. He further submits that statement of the prosecutrix (PW-3) is suspicious, material witness of the case i.e. friend/cousin of the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecution, therefore, conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that the Appellant may be granted benefit of bail.

On the other hand State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may not be granted benefit of bail.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused statements of the witnesses and other evidence available adduced by the prosecution.

Considering the evidence available on record and on perusal of statements of Ajay Sahu (PW-1) and the prosecutrix (PW-3) who is a girl aged about 8 years, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the Appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application (IA No. 01/2021) is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

Shubham (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge