Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 473 of 2021
Manish Verma S/o Late Shri. Mahesh Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o- Borsi, P.S.- Berla,
District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer- P.S. Dharsiwa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
11/07/2022 Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2021, application under Section 389 of CrPC for suspension
of sentence along with the fine and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 09/05/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/II Fast Track Court Special Court, District Raipur, (C.G.) in Special Criminal
(POCSO) Case No 32/2019, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 363 of Indian R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.
Penal Code 1,000/-. In default of payment of
fine further R.I. for two months.
Under Section 366 of Indian R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.
Penal Code 1,000/-. In default of payment of
fine further R.I. for two months.
Under Section 376(2)(n) of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
Indian Penal Code 5,000/-. In default of payment of
fine further R.I. for six months.
All the sentences are run
concurrently.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the age of the prosecutrix has not been duly
proved by the prosecution witnesses and the appreciation of the age of the prosecutrix by
the learned Special Court is erroneous and contrary to the Section 35 of the Evidence Act
and because of document Ex.P/3 could not be proved without the evidence of the author
of that document. He further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement categorically
stated that she is more than 18 years.
Looking to the statement of the prosecutrix it is very quite clear that she was living
with the appellant for almost two months and she did not raise any alarm and despite of
the fact that there is no medical evidence to suggest that her age was less than 18 years
even on the opinion of the doctor ossification test was not conducted by the prosecution.
He relied on the certain judgments in the matter of 'State (GNCT of Delhi) vs.
Hargovind', 2018 CJ (Del) 667, 'Dinesh Nishad vs State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A No.
363 of 2019, and 'State of Chhattisgarh vs. Sunil Kashyap @ Lauwa' CRMP
No.1491 of 2017 and submits that the appellant has already served three years and six
months of the sentence awarded to the appellant, therefore, the application may be
allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant may be suspended.
On the other hand learned counsel for the State not to grant bail to the appellant.
She submits that the Special Court after due appreciation of evidence came to the
conclusion that the prosecutrix/victim was less than 18 years and this categorically finding
cannot be disturbed at this stage while considering the suspension of sentence, however,
she submits that except the admission register there is no other evidence to disclose the
age of the prosecutrix.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having considered the rival contentions and having considered the statement of the
prosecutrix PW-7, statement of father PW-5 and statement of the author of Dakhil Kharij
Register PW-2, medical evidence and detention period of the appellant, I am of the
opinion that present is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant
and to release him on bail.
Accordingly, the application (I.A. No.1 of 2022) is allowed.
It is directed that the execution of substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He shall appear before the
Registry of this Court on 27/09/2022 and thereafter shall appear before the trial Court on
a date to be given by the Registry and shall continue to appear there on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court till disposal of this appeal.
List this appeal for final hearing.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Kamde
