Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Singh @ Dablu Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 2019
Ajay Singh @ Dablu Singh S/o Rajendar Singh, aged about 43 years, R/o Dadra,
Police Station : Khanpur, District Gajipur (U.P.), presently residing at Subhash
Chowk, Bendri Road, Urla, in the house of Laxmi Sao, Police Station : Urla, District
Raipur (C.G.)
----- Appellant s
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station : Urla, District : Raipur (C.G.)
----- Respondent
25/07/2022 Shri Pawan Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2019, application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.07.2019 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 269/2017, the appellant stands
convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentences
Under Section 450 of IPC R.I. for four years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of
fine to further undergo R.I. for one
month
Under Sections 6 of POCSO R.I. for ten years and fine of
Act Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of
fine to further undergo R.I. for three
months
Both the sentences directed to run concurrently
Mother of the prosecutrix appeared through Video Conferencing from the
DLSA, Raipur and state that she has objection if the bail is granted to the
appellant by this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from evidence of PW-2,
mother of the prosecutrix, it cannot be ruled out that there is a case of false
implication on account of some dispute with regard to mobile. He further
submits that PW-3 Dr.(Smt.) N. Bhatnagar has not given any opinion regarding
sexual intercourse committed against the prosecutrix and she has only stated
that apprehension of sexual intercourse might have been committed. He
submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court
is of ten years and he suffered more than 5 years of jail sentence. He also
submits that the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2017 and disposal of this appeal
is likely to take some time, therefore, the sentence awarded to him by the trial
Court may be suspended by this Court during the pendency of this appeal.
On the hand, learned counsel for the State submits that from the evidence
of PW-1, prosecutrix, particularly in para -1 of her deposition, she has
categorically stated that sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant. He
further submits that looking to age of the prosecutrix i.e. 08 years at the time of
incident, evidence of PW-3 Dr.(Smt.) N. Bhatnagar and material available on
record, the trial Court has justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of
evidence produced before it. Therefore, the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant may be rejected by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having considered the fact that circumstances of the case, particularly
considering the age & evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her statement (Ex.-
P/1) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, evidence of her
mother (PW-2) and evidence of Doctor (PW-3), without commenting anything
on merit, I am not inclined to suspend the sentence imposed upon the appellant
and release him on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2019, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant is rejected.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has completed more than half of the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court,
therefore, this appeal may be heard finally at an early date.
The request of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be
reasonable which has not been objected by the State counsel.
Let this appeal be listed for final hearing in the last week of August,
2022.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
vatti
