Sagar Kenwat vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4297 Chatt

                                                                              Page 1 of 3

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     Order Sheet

                                      CRA No. 377 of 2020
  Sagar Kenwat Son Of Chhotelal Kenwat Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Patwari
   Bada, Masanganj, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                             ---- Appellant
                                        Versus
  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District
   Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh         --- Respondent

07.07.2022 Mr. C.R. Sahu, counsel for appellant.

Mr. Afroz Khan, PL for the State/respondent.

Heard on IA No. 01 application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated

17.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Judge/First (FTC)

Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG in Special

Sessions Case No. 50/2017 appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 34c2 IPC and sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for period of 6 months with fne of Rs. 100/-,

and Under Section 4c of the Protection of Children From Sexual

Offences Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

period of 10 years with fne of Rs. 1,000/- plus default stipulation.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.05.2017 the

complainant has lodged report to the concern police station at about

7 pm he was bathing in the bathroom and the prosecutrix was

seating at out side of bathroom, thereafter she was not found her

daughter on the place and on the basis of FIR was registered under

Sections 34c2, 376 of IPC and Section 04c of the POCSO Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further

submits that a prosecution was not able to prove the guilty of the

appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Learned State Counsel submits that the the Dr. K. Patnayak

(PW-7) and looking to the age of the prosecutrix i.e. 7 years was able

to prove to guilt beyond reasonable doubt and on appreciation the

entire material available on record, the learned trial Court has come

to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the aforesaid

offences therefore, the appellant is not entitled for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,

perused the record of the trial Court and deposition of the witnesses

and after overall consideration, I am not inclined to suspension of

sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, IA No. 01, application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail is rejected.

List this case for fnal hearing.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

Pawan