Dindayal @ Chotu Nirmalkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2141 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                Order Sheet

                            CRA No. 1816 of 2019

• Dindayal @ Chotu Nirmalkar, S/o Alakh Nirmalkar, Aged about 20 years,
  Permanent R/o Gram- Saragaon, Police Station- Kharora, District Raipur
  (C.G.).

                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Kharora, District Raipur,
  (C.G.).

                                                                 ---- Respondent

03.09.2021 Mr. U.N.S. Deo, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.for the State/respondent. Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on I.A. No. 02/2019, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 294/2017 by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                  Conviction              Sentence            In Default

             U/s 363 of IPC        RI for 03 years and In       default     of
                                   fine    amount    of payment      of    fine
                                   Rs.500/-.            amount     additional
                                            RI for 01 month.

U/s 366 of IPC       RI for 05 years and In      default       of
                     fine    amount     of payment    of      fine
                     Rs.500/-.             amount    additional
                                           RI for 01 month.

u/S   06    of   the RI for 10 years and In      default       of
POCSO Act, 2012      fine    amount     of payment    of      fine
                     Rs.1,000/-.           amount    additional
                                           RI for 02 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. With regard to the age of the prosecutrix (PW-02), it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no conclusive evidence available on record on the basis of which it can be established that at the time of alleged incident the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and also with regard to the commission of rape there is no conclusive evidence available on record, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 19.07.2017. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect.

Heard both the parties.

I have perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as gone through the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-02) and her mother Smt. Urvashi (PW-01) and further considering the age of the proseuctrix and other evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of this opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant during the pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 02/2019 is rejected. List this case for final hearing in its due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Vasant