Jashwant Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4790 Chatt

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     Order Sheet

                                 CRA No. 1655 of 2021

   Jashwant Ekka S/o Sudarshan Ekka, aged about 20 years, R/o Village - Kunmera
     Khalpara, Police Station - Sitapur, District - Sarguja, C.G.

                                                                                Appellant

                                              Versus

   State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station - Bagbahaar, District - Jashpur, C.G.

                                                                              Respondent

Division Bench:-

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

26.07.2022 Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2021 the Additional

Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Patthalgoan,

District Jashpur C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.03/2020, the appellant

has been convicted as under:-

                       Conviction                          Sentence

             Under Section 363 of IPC        R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.100/- in
                                             default of payment of fine R.I. for 6
                                 months

Under Section 366(A) of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 6 months

Under Section 376 (2)(I)(N) R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.1000/- r/w under Section 5(L) and 6 in default of payment of fine R.I. for of POCSO Act one year.

Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that

appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has

been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He

is in custody since 02.07.2020, therefore, application may be allowed and

the appellant may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, submits that

on the basis of statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-1); Dakhil Kharij

Register {Ex.P/20(C)}; FSL report (Ex.P/32) and the age of the prosecutrix

was 15 years at the time of incident, the trial Court has rightly convicted

the appellant for the aforesaid offence and as such, the bail application of

the appellant deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their

rival submissions and also perused the records with utmost

circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

nature and gravity of offence and considering the statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-1); Dakhil Kharij Register {Ex.P/20(C)}; and further

considering the FSL report (Ex.P/32) in which on articles A, B, & C stains

of semen and human sperm were found and also considering the age of

the prosecutrix was 15 years at the time of incident and other evidence

available on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1, application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail, is rejected.

                        Sd/-                                 Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                    (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                     Judge                                  Judge




Ankit