Chattisgarh High Court
Jageshwar Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 727 of 2021
Jageshwar Dhruv S/o Punitram Dhruv, aged about 20 years, R/o Bramhanpara,
Tumgaon, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Thana - Tumgaon, District : Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
05.01.2022 Mr. Samir Singh, Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Kapil Maini, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Heard I.A. No.1/2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2021 passed in
Special Criminal Case No.H-02/2020 by learned Special Judge
(POCSO Act), District: Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, the appellant
stands convicted as mentioned below:
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 363 of IPC RI for 7 years with a In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.1,000/- additional RI for 1
month.
U/s 366 of IPC RI for 10 years with a In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.2,000/- additional RI for 2
months.
U/s 6 of POCSO RI for 20 years with a In default of payment
Act, 2012 fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.20,000/- additional RI for 6
months.
It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the conviction
against the appellant is bad in law without there being any evidence
of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutrix (PW-1) is
consenting party, which is reflected from her admission in cross-
examination, although prosecutrix has stated that she was of the
age below 18 years and the date of birth on which the prosecution
is relying is not conclusive. The date of birth was informed in school
by the father of the prosecutrix, Vinod Kumar Chandrakar (PW-2)
who has admitted in his cross examination that he had informed at
the time of school admission about the date of birth of the
prosecutrix in approximate. Therefore, prosecution has not made
out any case on the basis of which the conviction can be held to be
sustained. The appellant has a good case for grant of bail during
pendency of appeal, therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be
granted bail.
State counsel opposes the application and submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecutrix (PW-1) has clearly stated that she was of age of 18.
She was sexually exploited by the appellant. Hence, there is no
case present for grant of bail to the appellant.
Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial
Court.
Considered on the submissions and the evidence present in
the record of the Trial Court. Taking into consideration the statement
of father of prosecutrix (PW-2) and that of the Devendra Kumar
Nirmalkar (PW-3), who has made the entry in the school register.
We are of the view that the appellant should be granted bail during
the pendency of this appeal against him. Hence, the application is
allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 08.03.2022. 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.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Saurabh
