Chattisgarh High Court
Balram Sagar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No.247 of 2020
Balram Sagar S/o Ram Sagar Aged About 24 Years R/o Behind Rest House Sitamadi,
Korba, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali Korba,
District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent
20/09/2021 Ms. Seema Singh, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on 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 27.01.2020 passed by Learned Upper
Sessions Judge (FTC)/Special Judge POCSO Act, 2012, Korba, District Korba
in Special Case (POCSO) No.4/2018 for the offence as follows :
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 6 of the As per Section 42 of the POCSO
Protection of Children Act alternative sentence awarded
from Sexual Offices Act the greater sentence under Section
376(2) (n) of IPC
Under Section 376(2) (n) Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.
of IPC 1000/- in default of R.I. one month.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that as against long
standing relationship of the appellant and the prosecutrix for about 3 years
before lodging of FIR, prosecution has led weak evidence of age or that there
was false pretext of marriage. The appellant has undergone more than 4 years
of jail sentence by now. It is argued that age of the prosecutrix has not been
proved in accordance with law and author has not been examined who made
entries in the record. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has admitted
that the dispute between the appellant and the prosecutrix arose only when the
prosecutrix had seen the appellant with another girl and FIR was lodged.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that even though the
author who made entries in the record has not been examined, there is oral
evidence on record. He would next submit that though FIR was lodged after 3
years of the relationship, there is clear evidence that the prosecutrix consented
for sexual relationship only on pretext of appellant marrying her but when he
refused to marry her then FIR was lodged.
Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the
parties, particularly taking into consideration that the nature of allegation on the
basis of which age is sought to be proved and that allegation of false pretext of
marriage is being leveled 3 years after long standing affair between the
appellant and the prosecutrix and the appellant has undergone more than 4
years of jail sentence by now, we are inclined to allow the application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the substantive
jail sentence awarded to the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned Trial
Court on 15th of November, 2021 and on all such further dates as may be
directed during the pendency of this appeal and thereafter in interval which shall
not be less than six months.
List this case for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Rekha
