Thularam Bagh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2394 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 433 of 2020
  • Thularam Bagh S/o Gurwar Bagh Aged About 56 Years R/o Jharkhand, Police
    Station Sinapali, District Nuwapada Odissa At Present Resident Of Sant Ravidas
    Nagar, Behind Pragati Club Jhopda, Police Station Supela, District Durg,
    Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela,
    District Durg, Chhattisgarh.                               ---- Respondent

17-09-2021 Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL for the State/respondent.

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

and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2020 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge First (FTC) Special Judge (POCSO Act),

Durg, District Durg, CG in Sessions Case No. 95/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

prosecution evidence with regard to removal of the child from the

custody of the mother by the appellant is not proved from any clinching

evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident of the alleged

commission of rape by the appellant on the prosecutrix. He would further

submit that the doctor though has stated regarding various injuries found

on the private part of the prosecutrix, has stated that no different opinion

can be given with regard to commission of rape. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is highly doubtful.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would opposes and

submits that the conviction of the appellant is founded on the evidence

of the prosecutrix' mother who stated that when child went missing she

was searched and then she was found in the custody of the appellant in

his house and the appellant had kept the minor child aged three years

close to his body and the girl was snatched from the custody with lot of

difficulty and when she was put to medical examination, the private parts

of the prosecutrix were found damaged.

Taking into consideration the submission and the material

evidence on the based of which learned trial Court has convict the

appellant, no case is made out for grant of bail. Therefore, we do not

find a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, application is

therefore, rejected.

List this appeal for final hearing.

                              Sd/-                                      Sd/-
                  (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                  (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                             Judge                                     Judge



Pawan Prajapati