Jai Kumar Ghasiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5344 Chatt

                                          1 of 3
                                                                          CRA No. 675 of 2021



                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     Order Sheet

                                 CRA No. 675 of 2021

  Jai Kumar Ghasiya S/o Jot Ram, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Dhodhapara
    (Laxmipur), Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, C.G.

                                        Versus

  State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police of Police Station Bhatagaon, District Surajpur,
    C.G.

    Division Bench:-

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput




23.08.2022         Mr. Anil Gulati, counsel for the appellant.

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

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

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2021 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Surajpur, District

Surajpur, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No. 15/2020 the present

appellant has been convicted as under:-

                        Conviction                            Sentence

             Under Section 363 of IPC          R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
                                               default of payment of fine additional
                              2 of 3
                                                           CRA No. 675 of 2021


                                  R.I. for 4 months.

Under Section 366 क of IPC        R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-,

in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 4 months.

Under Section 376(क)(ख) of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 4 months.

Under Section 5(ड)/6 of POCSO Imprisonment for life and fine of Act Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 4 months.

Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the

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 20.03.2020, therefore, application may be allowed

and the appellant may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, opposes the

prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that on

the basis of statement of Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-1); FSL report

(Ex.P/27) and the age of the prosecutrix / victim at the time of incident

was about 7 years the learned 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.

3 of 3 CRA No. 675 of 2021

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

nature and gravity of offence and statement of Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo

(PW-1); age of the prosecutrix was about 7 years at the time of incident

and further considering the FSL report (Ex.P/27) in which on article A1,

A2 & B i.e. slide and undergarment of prosecutrix respectively, stains of

semen and human sperm were found and further considering the

material available on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the

present appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is rejected.

                       Sd/-                                      Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                   (Sachin Singh Rajput)
                     Judge                                   Judge




Ankit