Chattisgarh High Court
Teju @ Tejram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1025 of 2021
1. Teju @ Tejram Yadav, S/o Khemram Yadav, Aged About 18 Years, Resident of
Village Hathibod, Police Station-Parpodi, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2. Suraj @ Sonu Vishwakarma, S/o Kishun Vishwakarma. Aged About 25 Years.
Resident of Village Hathibod, Police-Station-Parpodi, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police-Station-Parpodi,
District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
21/02/2022 Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocates for the
appellant.
Mr. Devesh Verma, Govt. Advocate for the State.
Heard on IA No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 05/08/2021 passed by the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge(F.T.C.), Bemetara, District-Bemetara(Chhattisgarh) in Session Trial No.-
53/2020, the Appellant stands convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 376(Ä) of Indian Penal Code : Life imprisonment & fine of amount Rs.1000-1000/-
and in default of payment of fine further 01-01
month additional rigorous imprisonment to each
appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction against the appellant is
totally erroneous and bad in law. The prosecutrix PW-7 is not a reliable witness. There is a
note of the trial Court in the deposition regarding the childish behavior of the prosecutrix and
also it is mentioned that her statement was recorded in presence of her sister. Similarly, while
recording the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC, there is a note of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class that the prosecutrix is of childish mentality, therefore, the testimony of
the prosecutrix PW-7 should not have been relied upon by the trial Court for passing order of
conviction against the appellants and there is likelihood of delay in final hearing of this
appeal, therefore, it is prayed that they may be released on bail during the pendency of
appeal.
On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and
submits, that the prosecutrix was competent witness although there is a remark regarding her
childish behavior, but she has understood the questions put to her and answered accordingly,
therefore, conviction against the appellant is sustainable, hence, this application may also be
rejected.
We have heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.
Considered on the submissions. After looking to the evidence present in the case, we
are of the view that it is not a fit case in which the appellants should be granted bail after
suspension of sentence imposed against them.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Nisha
