Chattisgarh High Court
Ganeshwar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1709 of 2018
• Ganeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Thakur Ram Sahu Aged about 31 Years, R/o
Village- Aasra, Police Station- Dongargaon. Presently At Village- Gahira,
Bhedi, Police Station- Dongargaon, District- Rajnadgaon, Civil & Revenue
District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Dongergaon, District-
Rajnandgaon, (C.G.).
---- Respondent
10.09.2021 Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Akhtar Hussain, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 02/2018, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2018 passed in
Special Criminal Case No. 34/2016 by the Additional Sessions
Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) the appellant stands
convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 363 of IPC RI for 05 years and In default of
fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.2,000/-. amount additional
SI for 03 months.
U/s 06 of the RI for 10 years and In default of
POCSO Act, 2012 fine amount of payment of fine
Rs.5,000/-. amount additional
SI for 06 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. He submits that from perusal of statement of the
prosecutrix (PW-13), it appears that she was a consenting party
in the alleged act and she herself left her house and joined the
company of the appellant with her own will. With regard to her
age, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that from
the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-13), father of the prosecutrix
namely Mahmood Khan (PW-04) and mother Rashida Begam
(PW-05), it appears that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix
was aged about 18 years. Despite of the fact, the trial Court has
convicted the appellant only on the basis of Dakhil Kharij Panjee.
With regard to Dakhil Kharij Panjee, the counsel further argued
that from the statement of father of the prosecutrix namely
Mahmood Khan (PW-04), at the time of admission in school, he
recorded her date of birth on his own will. Therefore this evidence
also does not supported the case of the prosecution. The
Counsel lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since
13.06.2016 and the appeal is likely to take some time to finalized,
therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may be granted benefit of
bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the bail application.
Heard both the parties.
Perused the statements of the witnesses and other material
available on record. After gone through the statements of the
prosecutrix (PW-13), her parents and other evidence with regard
to her age and further considering the fact that the appellant is in
jail since 13.06.2016 and appeal is likely to take some time to
finalized. Without further commenting on other merits of the case,
I am of this opinion that it will be proper to release the appellant
on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly IA No. 02/2018 for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant is allowed.
On execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon
the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 14.12.2021. He shall thereafter
appear before the trial Court on a date to be 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 the
disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing in its due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Vasant
