Chattisgarh High Court
Ravi Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 October, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 212 of 2020
Ravi Sahu S/o. Om Prakash Sahu, aged about 23 years, R/o. Village Chhati,
Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG)
---- Appellant (in jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kurud, District
Dhamtari (CG)
---- Respondent
04/10/2021 Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on IA No.01/2020 for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to appellant.
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 363,366 and
376(3) IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay
fine of Rs. 200/- under section 363 IPC, RI for 3 years and to pay fine
of Rs. 300/- under section 366 IPC and RI for 20 years and to pay
fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 376(2) IPC with default clauses, vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2020
passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 44 of 2019 by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (CG).
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
conviction is wholly unsustainable in law as the prosecutrix has not
supported the case of the prosecution, turned completely hostile and
has denied that anything was done to her by the appellant including
sexual intercourse. He would further submit that the prosecution has
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was less
than 18 years of age, as on the date of incident because the entries
made in the Dakil Kharij register has not been proved either by the
author nor there is any evidence that such entry was made on the
basis of proper declaration made by the parents. The father of the
prosecutrix has admitted in his cross-examination, regarding the time
of birth which also proved that on the alleged date of incident the
prosecutrix was around 21 years of age, therefore, the appellant may
be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit
that though the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile, she was found pregnant and she was
found residing in the house of the appellant. It is further submitted
that the evidence with regard to age of the prosecutrix, apart from,
the entires made in the Dakhil Kharij register including oral evidence
also, has been rightly relied upon by the trial Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and what has been
stated by the prosecutrix, Dakil Kharij register has not been proved
by the author or the person on whose such declaration was made
and what has been stated by the father of the prosecutrix in the
cross-examination, we are inclined to allow the application of the
appellant.
Accordingly, IA No. 01/2020 is allowed. It is directed that the
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of the appeal and he shall be released
on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two
local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on
15th November, 2021 and on 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.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Santosh
