Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Kumar Ratre @ Karan Rai @ ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 899 of 2022
Karan Kumar Ratre @ Karan Rai @ Bhuru Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
01/08/2022 Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.01 of 2022, which is an application filed under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellant.
By impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2022,
the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of fine,
additional rigorous imprisonment of 100 days.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since
25.05.2022. Earlier also he remained in jail from 04.12.2020 to 17.09.2021. He has
not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted
that the conviction of the appellant is premised upon conjectures and surmises.
There are major contradiction and omission in the statements of prosecution
witnesses. The entire case is based upon personal grudge of the complainant
towards the appellant and, therefore, the appellant has been implicated in the
instant case. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant relied on
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263. He further
submits that the learned trial Court without appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence available on record convicted the appellant for the aforementioned
offence by recording perverse findings, which is contrary to record, thus, appellant
be enlarge on bail by suspending his jail sentence.
Per-contra, learned State counsel opposed the application and submits that
the appellant has committed rape with the a minor victim/prosecutrix, who is below
18 years of age on the date of offence, which is duly proved by Dakhila Khariz
Register (Ex.P/9C), wherein her date of birth is show to be 04.02.2003. By taking
this Court to the statement of the victim (PW-01) coupled with other medical
evidence i.e. FSL report (Ex.P/20), he submits that there is sufficient material
available on record to connect the appellant-accused with the offence and the
learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence
aforementioned and, therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the
material available on record particularly the fact that the age of the victim was 17
years 09 months on the date of offence coupled with her statement (PW-01), in
which she has clearly narrated the incident occurred with her and the FSL report
(Ex.P/20), wherein spot of human sperm/semen has been found on the
undergarments of the victim and other evidence available on record, we do not see
any good reason to entertain this application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail and same deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, IA No.01 of 2022 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
[email protected]
