Omprakash Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4091 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Order Sheet
                              CRA No. 1386 of 2021

                Omprakash Sahu Versus State Of Chhattisgarh




28/06/2022

Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for the appellant/s.

Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy.G.A. for the State.

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

The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Special Court (POCSO) Rajnandgaon (CG) in Special Criminal (POCSO) case No.03/2019 vide judgment and order of sentence dated 10/08/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 yrs. and fine of Rs.500/-, Section 366 of IPC, R.I. for 10 yrs and fine of Rs.500/-, Section 376 (3) of IPC, Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 376 AB of IPC, R.I. for Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 6 of POCSO Act, R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-. ( In default of payment of fine, further R.I. of one yer in each offence). All the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant has challenged the same in this appeal.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant abducted the prosecutrix who is a minor and committed rape on her.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant herein on the basis of irrelevant and inadmissible piece of evidence and as such, the substantive jail sentence deserves to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

Learned State counsel would oppose the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Taking into consideration the age of the prosecutrix which is about 5 years and 11 months on the date of incident which is duly proved by the prosecution, further taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix, medical evidence and FSL report (Ex.P/

26), we do not find it to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. I.A.No.1 is accordingly rejected.

                         Sd/-                               Sd/-

                ( Sanjay K. Agrawal)                 (Sachin Singh Rajput)
                       Judge                               Judge




Deepti