Chattisgarh High Court
Raja Rajput (Verma) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 905 of 2021
Raja Rajput (Verma) Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
10/08/2022 Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
Heard on IA No.01/2021, 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 31.07.2021,
the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 03 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and, in
default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 03 months; Under Section 366 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo 07 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.200/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 06 months;
under Section 376(2)(j)(n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous
imprisonment of 03 years; under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 06
months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- 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 15 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of
fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 03 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since
25.07.2019. He has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated. 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 entire case is based upon personal
grudge of the complainant towards the appellant and, therefore, the appellant has
been implicated in the instant case. 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, who is aged about 17 years and take
her to various place and committed sexual intercourse with her. By taking this Court
to the statement of the victim (PW-01) coupled with other medical evidence i.e.
medical report and FSL report (Ex.P/19), 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 17 years on the date of offence and the appellant has first abducted her and
thereafter committed rape with her coupled with the statement of the victim (PW-01)
itself, in which she has clearly narrated the incident occurred with her and the FSL
report (Ex.P/19), wherein spot of human sperm/semen has been found on the
undergarments and vaginal slides of the victim as also in the undergarments 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]
