Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Hasan @ Deepak Aditya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 94 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 94 Chatt
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court
Hasan @ Deepak Aditya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2022
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    Order Sheet

                                 CRA No. 247 of 2021

• Hasan @ Deepak Aditya, S/o Munnaram Aditya, Aged about 23 years, R/o Village
  Kahrapara Kikirada, Police Station- Birra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.).

                                                                            ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Birra, District-
  Janjgir Champa (C.G.).

                                                                        ---- Respondent

06.01.2022 Ms. Madhunisha Singh, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 29/2019 by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act, 2012), Janjgir Champa (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

Conviction Sentence In Default

U/s 363(3) of the RI for 20 years and In default of payment of IPC fine amount of fine amount additional RI Rs.1000/-. for 01 year.

U/s 506 Part-II of RI for 03 years and In default of payment of the IPC fine amount of fine amount additional RI Rs.500/-. for 03 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial Court is erroneous and without evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There is a clear delay of about six months in lodging the FIR. The incident had occurred on 15.10.2018 whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.05.2019. Further the prosecutrix has made certain admissions in her cross- examination which make her an unreliable witness. The prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. The date of birth as mentioned in the entry in the school register is doubtful because the mark-sheet of Class-3 which was produced in prosecution evidence has been contradicted by the statement of the prosecutrix herself who has admitted in her cross- examination that she never studied in Class-3 in the school. Further there is a discrepancy on the basis of admission made by the father of the prosecutrix namely Munnaram Kumhar (PW-02) that the date of birth of the prosecutrix in Aadhar Card is different from the date which is mentioned in the school register, therefore, it is a case of false implication. It is also submitted that there had been a love affair between the prosecutrix and the appellant regarding which document has been produced. Hence, it is prayed that his application may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect. He further submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The delay in lodging the FIR has been sufficiently explained by the prosecutrix (PW-01) and also her father namely Munnaram Kumhar (PW-02). There is proof of age of the prosecutrix presented by father of the prosecutrix has clearly stated date of birth about 29.09.2005 and same is in the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-01) and this is accordingly mentioned in the school register which has been proved by the Pincipal of the school namely Dashrath Pali (PW-

09). Therefore, it is clearly that the prosecutrix was minor of age about 14 years on the date of incident. Her any affair or any love relationship with the appellant cannot be taken into consideration, it is a clear case of conviction of offence and the conviction is sustainable, therefore, the application may be rejected.

Heard.

Considering on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the trial Court and evidence of the witnesses mainly the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-01) and her father (PW-02), we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case where such an application should be allowed.

Application (I.A. No. 01/2021) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is accordingly rejected.

List this case for final hearing in its due course.

                           Sd/-                             Sd/-            Sd/-
                                            Sd/-
                     (R.C.S. Samant)               (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                         Judge                             Judge




Vasant
  

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter