Lalanram Pando vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2409 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           Order Sheet

                                      CRA No. 173 of 2021

 Lalanram Pando, S/o Ramcharan Pando, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Basen
 (Manjhapara), P.S. Udaipur, District Sarguja, C.G.
                                                                                    Appellant

                                            Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Udaipur, District
 Sarguja, C.G.
                                                                               Respondent

11.04.2022 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 29.12.2020

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court

(POCSO Act), Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. in Special Criminal Case

(POCSO Act) No.62/2017, the appellant has been convicted as under :-

                              Conviction                              Sentence

             Under Section 376 - घ of IPC             R.I. for life & fine of Rs.5000/- in default
                                                      of fine Additional R.I. for 06 months

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and only on the basis of conjecture and surmises

appellant has been convicted. He further submits that the learned Additional

Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) was absolutely

unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence by recording a

finding which is perverse to the record.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that considering the

statement and age of the victim / prosecutrix (PW-3) to be 14 years and

statement of doctor (PW-7), it is not the case for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted

the appellant.

Taking into consideration the materials available on record and statement

of victim / prosecutrix (PW-3), statement of Dr. Kiran Bhajgawali (PW-7) and

also the age of the victim to be 14 years, we do not find it to be a fit case for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021 is

rejected.

                         Sd/-                                     Sd/-
                (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                      (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                      Judge                                      Judge




Ankit