Akash Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5067 Chatt

                                               1
                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                               ORDER SHEET
                                         Cr.A. No. 619 of 2022

 Akash Yadav S/o Khilawan Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar
  Nayapara, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                              ---- Appellant
                                                    Versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh       Through     Police   Station-   Sirgitti,   District   Bilaspur
  (Chhattisgarh)
                                                                           ---- Respondent

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

05.08.2022 Shri C. K. Kesharwani, counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2022, an application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by First F.T.S.C.

(POCSO)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case

No.63/2020, the Accused/Appellant stands convicted under Sections 363 IPC,

366 A IPC and 5(L) (M) (O)/6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05

years with fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 363 and 366 IPC and to undergo life

imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 5(L) (M) (O)/6 of POCSO Act

and in default of payment of fine amount, the Appellant shall suffer additional R.I.

for six months and five months respectively.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is no evidence on

record against the Appellant and despite that he has been convicted for the said

offence. He would further submit that PW-1 Smt. Munni Yadav, mother of the

deceased, PW-2 Soniya Yadav, sister of the deceased, PW-3 Smt. Sunita Yadav,

sister of the deceased and PW-4 Sonu Yadav, brother of the deceased have not

alleged in their statements that it is the appellant who has committed rape with

her and she became pregnant. They have also stated in their statements that the

deceased had gone with the Appellant. Further submission of the learned counsel

for the Appellant is that there is neither medical evidence nor FSL report on

record against the Appellant to connect him to the offence in question except the

statement of Doctor, PW-8, in which, it has been found that the deceased was

carrying pregnancy of 24-26 weeks, and therefore, it is a fit case for suspension

of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

On the other hand, opposing the bail application, learned State Counsel

submits that it is the Appellant, who is the author of the crime and has committed

rape with the deceased and if statement of Doctor, PW-8, is taken into

consideration, it is clear that the deceased was carrying pregnancy of 24-26

weeks, as such, it is not a case wherein the Appellant should be enlarged on bail.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, and particularly, taking into consideration the statements of PW-1 Smt.

Munni Yadav, PW-2 Soniya Yadav, PW-3 Smt. Sunita Yadav, PW-4 Sonu Yadav,

who have not alleged that it was the Appellant, who has committed the rape with

the deceased and that PW-2, who has turned hostile, has not supported the case

of the prosecution and except the statement of Doctor PW-8, in which, pregnancy

of 24-26 weeks has been found, there is no other evidence available on record to

connect the Appellant in the offence in question, it is a fit case to suspend the jail

sentence imposed upon the Appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2022 is allowed and it is directed that the jail

sentence imposed upon the Appellant shall remain suspended during the

pendency of this Appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like sum to the

satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on

03.11.2022 and thereafter, he shall appear on all such further dates as may be

directed during the pendency of this appeal. However, observation made herein-

above is only confined to disposal of bail application and shall not be construed

as opinion on merits of the matter.

                         Sd/-                                             Sd/-

                 (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                              (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                       Judge                                             Judge




Nikita