Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Mahilange vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1248 of 2021
Rajesh Mahilange Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
04/08/2022 Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.01 of 2021, 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 29.09.2021, the
appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 01 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of fine,
rigorous imprisonment of 03 months; under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 03 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and, in default of fine,
rigorous imprisonment of 06 months; under Section 376(2)(j)(n) of IPC and sentenced
to undergo 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of
fine, rigorous imprisonment of 03 years; under Section 376(3) of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 20 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of fine,
rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and also under 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to undergo 20 years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of fine, rigorous imprisonment of 03
years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed
any offence and he has been falsely implicated. He is in jail since long and there is no
possibility of this appeal to be heard finally in near future. 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
victim/prosecutrix was the consenting party. 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 firstly abducted the minor victim/prosecutrix and, thereafter, taken her to
various places and further on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercouse with
her many times. Further the age of the victim was below 16 years on the date of
offence, which is duly proved by Dakhil Khariz Register (Ex.P/04C), wherein her date
of birth has been recorded as 08.09.2002 and, thus, the argument of learned counsel
for the appellant that the victim was consenting party has not admissible in the eyes of
law. By taking this Court to the statement of the victim (PW-02) coupled with medical
evidence i.e. FSL report 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 taken her and thereafter committed sexual
intercourse with her and the FSL report, wherein spots of human sperm/semen has
been found in the undergarment of the victim as also in her vaginal slides and also in
the undergarment of the appellant, 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 2021 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
[email protected]
