Chattisgarh High Court
B. Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 550 of 2020
B. Sonu Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
02/08/2022 Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.01 of 2020, 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 26.05.2020,
the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376(3) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-
and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 06 month; under Section
363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine
of Rs.1000/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 06 months
and also under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of fine, additional
rigorous imprisonment of 01 year. (All sentences are directed to run concurrently).
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since
15.12.2014. He has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated.
There are major contradiction and omission in the statements of prosecution
witnesses, specially in the statements of victim (PW-01), her mother (PW-02) and
her father (PW-03). Even, the credibility of the version that has been stated by the
victim cannot be relied upon as the same is not trustworthy. The medical evidence
also does not support the case of the prosecution and the appellant was not the
person from who's possession or from who's house the victim is recovered by the
police. He further submits that the entire case is concocted one, which is based
upon personal grudge and old enmity of the father of the victim towards the
appellant and, therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant
case. 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 firstly abducted the minor victim and thereafter committed rape
with her many times. Further, the age of the victim was below 16 years on the date
of offence, which is duly proved by her birth certificate (Ex.P/11C), wherein her date
of birth is show to be 09.02.1999. By taking this Court to the statement of the victim
(PW-01) coupled with medical evidence i.e. FSL report (Ex.P/29) and other
evidence available on record, 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 below
16 years on the date of offence coupled with her statement (PW-01), in which she
has clearly narrated that the appellant has forcibly taken her and thereafter
committed sexual intercourse with her and the FSL report (Ex.P/29), wherein spots
of human sperm/semen has been found in the undergarment of the victim as also in
her vaginal slides, 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 2020 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
[email protected]
