Panchram @ Maiya @ Dhanau vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5120 Chatt

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      Order Sheet

                                  CRA No. 1148 of 2021

Panchram @ Maiya @ Dhanau S/o Budhari Gond, aged about 20 years, R/o Kamthi
Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham, C.G.

                                         Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Oficer, Police Station - Kukdur, District
Kabirdham, C.G.

Division Bench:-

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




10.08.2022         Mr. Ashish Shukla, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A. for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2020 the learned Special

Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Fast Track

Court, Kabirdham. (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 09/2019 the

appellant has been convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 363 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default payment of fine 1 month additional R.I.

Under Section 366 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine 1 month additional R.I.

Under Section 376(A)(B) Life Imprisonment till natural death and find of of IPC Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine 3 months additional R.I.

Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that

appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been

convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He is in

custody since 27.01.2019, therefore, application may be allowed and the

appellant may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, submits that on

the basis of statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-3), Dr. Prasangina

Sadhu, Medical report (Ex. P/11) and on the basis of FSL report (Ex.P/27),

and also considering the age of the prosecutrix / victim at the time of

offence, she was about 9 years old, the trial Court has rightly convicted the

appellant for the aforesaid offence and as such, the bail application of the

appellant deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions and also perused the records with utmost

circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

nature and gravity of offence and considering the statement of

prosecutrix / victim (PW-3) and Dr. Prasangnia Sadhu, who has found

injury on private part of the prosecutrix / victim which is duly supported by the medical report (Ex. P/11), further taking into consideration of FSL

report (Ex.P/27) in which on article D human sperm was found and on

articles A & C stains of blood was found and also considering the age of

the prosecutrix / victim at the time of offence, she was 9 years old, we are

not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021, is

rejected.

                      Sd/-                                    Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                    (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                     Judge                                  Judge




Ankit