Chattisgarh High Court
Purnath Nag vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Cr.A. No.441 of 2018
• Purnath Nag S/o Kanval Sai, Caste- Mahara Aged About 27 Years,
Occupation- Agriculture, R/o- Village- Tongkongera, Pujaripara, P.S.-
Karpawand, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Aarakshi Kendra Ajak Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar, Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
06/05/2022 Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2019, this is a repeat application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The first application filed for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2018.
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2018, in Special Case
No.07/17, passed by Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Jagdalpur, District -
Bastar (C.G.) with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the
following manner :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 450 of the Indian Penal R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.1000/-
Code and in default of payment of fine,
additional R.I. for 03 month.
U/s. 06 of Protection of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-
Children from Sexual and in default of payment of fine,
Offences Act. additional R.I. for 03 months.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the conviction against the appellant is totally erroneous and without the
support of reliable prosecution evidence. Although the prosecutrix has
made statement against the appellant about continuation of the incident
for almost one year is suggestive that it was a consensual relationship.
The prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor on
the date of incident and further, the evidence of Doctor (P.W.-19) does
not mention about any opinion regarding rape with the minor victim. The
report vide Ex.P/20 also mentions that the hymen of the victim was intact
and there were no signs of injuries. Therefore, the total case of the
prosecution is false and unreliable. The appellant is in jail since about 5
years, which is almost the half of the sentence imposed upon him.
Therefore, it is prayed that he may be granted bail.
Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that the
prosecutrix has very clearly supported the case against the appellant in
her statement before the Court, therefore, the conviction is based on the
cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, it is prayed that application may be
rejected.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court.
Considering on the submissions. Although there is evidence of
prosecutrix and other witnesses against the appellant and also that there
is a finding that prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. However,
according to the case itself, the incident had occurred during the period
of one year continuously, whereas the Doctor (P.W.-19) examining the
minor prosecutrix has opined differently which shall be subject to
consideration in the appeal, but for the present time I am of this view that
this application is fit to be allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2019, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant shall
remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond for a sum 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 28 th of June, 2022. He shall thereafter
appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the Registry of this
Court and shall continue to appear there on all such subsequent dates
as are given to him by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Monika
