Devichand Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7306 Chatt

                                                                               Page 1 of 3

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                       Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 157 of 2021
  Devichand Chandrakar, S/o Shri Luman Chandrakar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o -
  Village- Sukhatal, Chouki Khandsara, Police Station - Bemetara, District - Bemetara
  (C.G.)
                                                                         ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
  State of Chhattisgarh, Through - S.H. Arakshi Kendra, Chowki Khandsara, District-
  Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                                       ---Respondent

05.12.2022 Mr. Vivek Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Heard on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act, 2012), Bemetara, (C.G.) in Special Case No. 54/2017, the appellant stands convicted, as under:-

Conviction Sentence U/s 376 (2)(i)(j)(n) of : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 IPC years.

U/s 6 of POCSO Act, : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in 2012 default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 years.

(Both sentences are directed to run concurrently) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant would submit that it is case of consent and the prosecutrix in her evidence has stated at paragraph 25 that she is aware about her future, therefore, without any objection, she went with the appellant at Jabalpur and Luknow

and the appellant also purchased new cloth for her. He would further submit that whether the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse has not been proved by the prosecution as Dr. Anamika Minj (PW-2) in her evidence has stated that she cannot give exact opinion with regard to sexual intercourse with the victim. He would further submit that the date of birth of the victim has not been proved as PW-8 in his examination-in-chief has admitted that it is nowhere mentioned how the date of birth has been recorded. He has voluntarily stated that the date of birth of the victim has been recorded by guessing. He would also submit that there is no likelihood of the appeal coming up for final hearing in the near future, hence, it is prayed that the application be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submitted that there is clinching evidence against the appellant regarding commission of offence, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Father of the victim is present before this Court through DLSA, Bemetara and has made statement that he has raised objection in releasing the appellant on bail.

Considering the statement of the victim, medical report, which has been brought on record, which does not specifically establishes that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse, age of the victim has not been proved by the prosecution and considering the fact that the appellant is in jail from 22.01.2021 i.e. for more than 1 year and 11 months also considering the fact that the appeal being of the year 2021, final hearing of the same will likely to take time, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant and release him on bail.

Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed and it is directed that execution of further substantive jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his

executing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23rd January, 2023. He shall thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to him by the said court till the disposal of this appeal.

It is made clear that the date given by the trial Court for appearance of the appellant should not have interval of more than 90 days from previous date.

List this appeal for final hearing in its chronological order.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun