Chattisgarh High Court
Goludas Manikpuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CR.A. No. 298 of 2019
Goludas Manikpuri, S/o. Late Shri Dashrath Das Manikpuri, aged about 23 years, R/
o. Kabir Nagar, Police Station Kabir Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant.
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---Respondent
21/09/2021 Mr. Pawan Kashyap, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Alok Nigam, G.A. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.4/2021, repeat application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail. Earlier bail application of the appellant
was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after six
months.
Appellant has been convicted by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 06.02.2019, passed in Special Criminal
POSCO Case No.139/2018 by the learned Special Judge (Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.) in the following manner with a direction to run all the sentences
concurrently :-
U/s. 363 of the Indian : R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-
Penal Code. and in default of payment of fine,
further undergo 1 month of R.I.
U/s. 366 of the Indian : R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-
Penal Code. and in default of payment of fine,
further undergo 1 month of R.I.
U/s. 6 of Protection of : R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Children from Sexual Rs.2000/- and in default of payment
Offences Act, 2012 of fine, further undergo two months
of R.I.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the appellant has been erroneously convicted by the trial Court. The
statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.-5) very clearly shows that she
never had any objection in staying with the appellant or having
physical relation with him. The appellant has proved in the trial that
the prosecutrix was not minor, therefore, the appellant has good case
to argue. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of imprisonment
against the appellant be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It is submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the
prosecutrix was minor and therefore, her statement for physical
relation amounts to commission of offence of rape. Therefore, the
application be rejected.
Considered on the submissions. Perused the deposition of the
prosecutrix (P.W.-5) and the deposition of other witnesses. Taking
into consideration on all the evidence present in the prosecution case,
this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence
and release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.4/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant
shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on
his executing a personal bond for a sum Rs.25,000/- with one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 22nd November, 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
balram Judge
