Chattisgarh High Court
Ramayan Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ORDER SHEET
CRA No. 1469 of 2019
Ramayan Sahu S/o Ridhelal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Lenjwara, Police Station
Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Berla, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
Division Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
28.07.2022 Shri Rajkumar Pali, counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A No.01/2019, an application filed under Section 389 of
Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.09.2019
passed by the Special Judge (POCSO) Act, 2012 Bemetara, District
Bemetara (C.G.) in Special Case No. 01/2018, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Offence U/s 363 of I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of fine R.I. for 1 year.
Offence U/s 342 of I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default
of payment of fine R.I. for 3 months
Offence U/s 376 (2) (i)(n) R.I. for 14 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in
of I.P.C. default of payment of fine R.I. for 3 years.
Offence U/s. 506 part-II of R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
I.P.C. default of payment of fine R.I. for 1 year
Offence U/s. 6 of POCSO R.I. for 14 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in
default of payment of fine amount additional
R.I. for 3 years.
All the sentences to run concurrently
Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the case is based
only upon on the previous enmity and the Medical Report of Dr. Anamika Minj
(PW-14) Para-02 has not supported the prosecution case the and Appellant
has been falsely implicated in the matter and he is not involved in the crime in
question. He submits further that the Appellant is in jail since 04.12.2017, and
therefore, he may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned state counsel opposes the bail application
on the submission that taking into consideration particularly the statement of
Kiren Sen (PW-02), and taking into consideration the age of the
prosecutrix/victim to be 14 years 7 months and 13 days at the time of offence,
as per the statement of Poshan Lal Sinha (PW-05) and the Relevant page of
Dakhil Kharij (Ex.P-12-C), and further taking into consideration the F.S.L.
Report (Ex.P-28), wherein the human sperm was found in the Slide-A, the
present appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record carefully.
Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for
the parties as also considering the material available on record, particularly,
the statement of Kiren Sen (PW-02), and taking into consideration the age of
the prosecutrix/victim to be 14 years 7 months and 13 days at the time of
offence, as per the statement of Poshan Lal Sinha (PW-05) and the Relevant
Document/Dakhil Kharij (Ex.P-12-C), and further taking into consideration the
F.S.L. Report (Ex.P-28), wherein the human sperm was found in the Slide-A,
we do not find it to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly I.A. No.01/2019, an application filed under Section 389 of
Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is
rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
vivek
