Chattisgarh High Court
Manish vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 September, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 146 of 2021
Manish S/o Dilharan Maravi Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Kirari, Police Station-
Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh The Station House Officer, Police Station- Akaltara, District-
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
28/09/2021 Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.
Heard on IA No.1/21, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
sentenced to undergo RI for 20 years and fine of Rs.1000/- vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8 th January
2021 passed in S.T. No.44 of 2019 by learned Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Janjgir, District- Janjgir -Champa.
Learned counsel for appellant would argue that in the present
case, statement of the prosecutrix is apparent that it is a case of
consensual affair between the prosecutrix and the appellant and as
the marriage could not materialise, report came to be lodged.
On the aspect of age, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that in the cross-examination, father of the prosecutrix Dev
Kumar Maravi (PW2) has stated that the date of birth of the
prosecutrix was recorded in the school only on the basis of
estimation, which makes it doubtful that the prosecutrix was minor
on the date of commission of offence, particularly when no
certificate of birth issued from any competent authority has been
stated to be the basis for recording date of birth in the school.
Therefore, it is prayed, the appellant may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the
application. He submits that the prosecutrix's statement is that the
appellant has committed rape on her because she had not given her
consent and the appellant committed repeated sexual intercourse
on her over a long period until it was disclosed by the prosecutrix to
her parents. He submits that the entries made in the school register
have been proved by her father Dev Kumar Maravi (PW2) who has
stated that on his instructions, entries were made and even though
in the cross-examination at one place, he stated that date of birth
was disclosed on the basis of estimation, in further cross-
examination, he has stated firmly that girl was 15 years and 10
months of age at the time of lodging of FIR.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the
statement made by father of the prosecutrix Dev Kumar Maravi
(PW2) in his cross-examination with regard to age of the prosecutrix
and in the absence of there being any other certificate of date of
birth or any other clinching evidence with regard to date of birth of
the prosecutrix, we are inclined to allow the application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain
suspended during pendency of the appeal and he 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
concerned trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned trial
Court on 15 th November 2021 and on all such further dates as may
be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than six
months, till final disposal of this appeal.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Praveen
