Ajay Sarkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3256 Chatt

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            Order Sheet
                                      CRA No. 1378 of 2019
         Ajay Sarkar, S/o Anukul Sarkar, aged about 18 years, R/o Village Sakin P.V. 82,
          Police Station Bande, District North Bastar, Kanker (Chhattisgarh)
                                               Versus
         State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bande, District North Bastar, Kanker
          (Chhattisgarh)




05/05/2022        Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
             for the appellant.

                  Mr. Somya Rai, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

Heard on IA No.01, which is first application filed by the appellant under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019, the appellant has been convicted under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of one month and also under Section 376(A)(B) of IPC and sentenced to undergo twenty years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of one year.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since 08.05.2018. The medical evidence does not supports the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellant by considering irrelevant evidence and recording perverse findings and, as such, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail by suspending his jail sentence.

Per-contra, learned State counsel opposed the application and by taking this Court to the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-3) he submits that the age of the prosecutrix was 4 years at the time of incident and there is ample evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the said offences and, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and going through the material available on record and specially taking into consideration the age of the victim to be 4 years at the time of incident and her testimony (PW-3) coupled with other evidence available on record, we do not see any good ground to entertain this application. Accordingly, IA No.01 is rejected.

                           Sd/-                                       Sd/-
                    (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                         (Rajani Dubey)
                         Judge                                     Judge




[email protected]