Ajay Parihar @ Banti @ Kaushlendra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4266 Chatt

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                         Order Sheet
                                    CRA No. 1243 of 2018

  1. Ajay Parihar @ Banti @ Kaushlendra S/o Shiv Ram Parihar Aged About 20 Years R/o-
     Divyapur (Sanjay Nagar) Post Divyapur District Oraiya (U.P.) Present Address- Thelkadih
     Sukhit Yadav Ka Makan, Post Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

  2. Kishan Sahu S/o Thanu Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o- Khadkhadi, Thana Bagnadi,
     District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

  3. Suraj Yadav S/o Manglu Ram Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o- Kumhar Para Churiya
     Thana Churiya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                                               ---- Appellants

                                           Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Ajak, Supela, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                                              ---- Respondent

Division Bench :-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

06/07/2022 Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, counsel for the appellant/s.

Shri Sameer Uraon, Govt. Adv. for the State.

Heard on I.A.No.1/18, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellants have been convicted vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27/06/2018 passed by learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge under POCSO Act, Durg (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.36/2016. The appellants have challenged the same in this appeal.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellants committed rape on the prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecutrix was major and a consenting party. Learned Trial, on the basis of irrelevant and inadmissible piece of evidence, recorded a perverse finding and convicted the appellants herein. Therefore, it is submitted that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail deserves to be allowed.

Learned State counsel would oppose the application and submits that the prosecutrix was minor as per the documents Ex.P/30C proved by Smt. Deepak Gawre (PW10) - Head Mistress of the School and furthermore, in the FSL report (Ex.P/33) on slide-B of the prosecutrix, human sperm was found and the prosecutrix (PW1) has also supported the case of the prosecution.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the material available on record, the prosecutrix was minor as per the documents (Ex.P/30C) proved by the Head Mistress of the school, FSL report proves presence of human sperm on slide B of the prosecutrix and also considering that the prosecutrix has also supported the case of the prosecution, we are of the view that present is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

I.A.No.1/18 is accordingly rejected.

                       Sd/-                                 Sd/-

               ( Sanjay K. Agrawal)                   (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                     Judge                                  Judge




Deepti