Farid Ali vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1512 Chatt

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                              Order Sheet

                                          CRA No. 1863 of 2017

   Devendra Choudhary S/o Shri Khemraj Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
    Bramhanpuri, Police Station Basna, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

                                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                                Versus

   State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund
    Chhattisgarh

                                                                                 ---- Respondent

CRA No. 1918 of 2017

 Farid Ali S/o Rasid Ali Rajwade, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pirda, Thana Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

23/03/2022 Shri Awadh Tripathi and Shri Deepak Jain, Counsel for the respective appellants.

Shri Ghanshyam Patel, GA for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.1 & I.A. No.2 (in CRA No.1863 of 2017) and I.A. No.3/2022 (in

CRA No.1918 of 2017) which are the applications for suspension of sentence and grant

of bail to the appellants.

By virtue of impugned judgment dated 15.11.2017 the appellants have been

convicted in the following manner:-

For the offence under Section 376 (D) R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.2000/- of Indian Penal Code in default of fine additional R.I. for 3 months.

For the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) Life imprisonment and fine of of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Rs.1000/- in default of fine additional Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, R.I. for 1 month

Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellants while inviting attention to the statement of

Vishwas Rao Maske (PW-15), who is the Tehsildar, would submit that one of the

accused namely Charanjeet @ Prince, who has already been acquitted, was identified

by the prosecutrix (PW-5), but has turned hostile in this regard, therefore, her statement

is not trustworthy and has been made in order to implicate the appellants falsely in

connection with the alleged crime. It is contended further that the statement of

Chandrakiran (PW-8), who is the Medical Officer would show that she has also not

supported the prosecution story, therefore, the substantive jail sentence imposed upon

the appellants may be suspended and they may be released on bail.

On the other hand Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned Government Advocate, while

inviting attention to the statement of prosecutrix (PW-5) would submit that the

appellants have committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. Therefore, the

substantive jail sentence of the appellants may not be suspended and they are not

entitled to be released on bail.

Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties and further considering

the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-5), we do not find any reason to disbelieve her

statement and the plea of negative equality as contended herein cannot be appreciated

at this stage, which is left open at the time of final hearing.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1 & I.A. No.2 (in CRA No.1863 of 2017) and I.A. No.3/2022

(in CRA No.1918 of 2017) applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to

the appellants are rejected.

Let the matter be listed for final hearing.

                          SD/-                                             SD/-

                      (Goutam Bhaduri)                              (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                         Judge                                           Judge




ashu