Chattisgarh High Court
Bhanupratap Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 224 of 2021
Bhanupratap Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
02/08/2022 Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.01, 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 25.01.2021,
the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/- and,
in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 01 month; under Section 366
of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of
Rs.500/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 01 month and
also 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.1,000/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 02
months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since
19.07.2019. He has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated.
There are major contradiction and omission in the statements of prosecution
witnesses. He submits that the age of the victim to be minor on the date of offence
has not been proved by any prosecution witness. 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
16 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 13.07.2000. By taking
this Court to the statement of the victim (PW-01) coupled with other medical
evidence i.e. FSL report of DNA (Ex.P/23), 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
around 15 years on the date of offence coupled with her statement (PW-01), in
which she has clearly narrated that the appellant has taken her to various places
and committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she became pregnant and
gave birth to a child and the FSL report of DNA test (Ex.P/23), wherein DNA profile
of the present appellant-accused and that of victim have been matched with the
blood sample of the child born from the victim and they are shown to parents of the
said child, 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 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
[email protected]
