Chattisgarh High Court
Radhelal Manhare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 June, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2022
Radhelal Manhare Versus State of Chhattisgarh
DB
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
15/06/2022 Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.1/2022 application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail filed under Section 389 of the CrPC.
The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(f)
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a
fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 27-11-2021 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Durg in Sessions Trial
No.49/2019. He has challenged the same in this appeal in which the
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the
pendency of appeal has been filed on his behalf as I.A.No.1/2022.
Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would submit that relationship between the victim and the
accused is mother and son. He would further submit that on account
of property dispute between the victim's younger son and the victim's
elder son i.e. the appellant herein, the appellant has been falsely
implicated which is apparent from the statement of Roop Kumar (PW-
2) who is brother of the appellant herein and also from the statement
of Smt. Khomin (PW-5) (paragraph 9), who is daughter of younger
brother of the appellant. Roop Kumar (PW-2) in paragraph 21 of his
evidence clearly states that there is dispute of property pending for
last ten years. Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel, would further submit
that there is no medical evidence as apparent from Ex.P-3 MLC and
no incriminating material has been found against the appellant and
merely on the self-serving statement of the victim and the appellant's
younger brother Roop Kumar (PW-2) and his daughter Smt. Khomin
(PW-5), the appellant has been convicted, as such, the appellant has
been falsely implicated and there is delay in lodging the FIR. The
incident is of 14-1-2019 and the FIR has been lodged on 17-1-2019.
As such, the appellant be released on bail.
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that from the
statements of the victim (PW-1), Roop Kumar (PW-2) and Smt.
Khomin (PW-5), it is quite vivid that the appellant has committed
sexual intercourse with his mother (PW-1), therefore, he has rightly
been convicted and it is not the case where sentence imposed upon
the appellant should be suspended and he should be granted bail. He
would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and another 1 to buttress his
submission.
We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties and went through the record with utmost
circumspection.
Age of the victim is 75 years, he is mother of the appellant and the
appellant is her elder son. There is subsisting property dispute
between the two sons of the victim namely, the appellant herein and
Roop Kumar (PW-2) which is also apparent from the statement of
Smt. Khomin (PW-5), daughter of the appellant's younger brother.
Furthermore, there is no medical evidence supporting the case of the
prosecution as per the MLC and even the FSL report Ex.P-19 also
does not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, no incriminating
material has been found against the appellant. Taking into
consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the
evidence available on record, particularly, considering that the
appellant is in jail since more than three years, we consider it a fit
case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant
during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is
1 (2002) 9 SCC 366
allowed.
It is directed that 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.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
25-7-2022 and thereafter, he shall appear before the trial Court on a
date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to
appear before the trial Court on all such other subsequent dates as
are given to him by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Soma
