Rajesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6845 Chatt

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                          Order Sheet

                                       CRA No. 299 of 2021

                              Rajesh Sahu Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey




16.11.2022         Mr. A.K. Yadav, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A. for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

27.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, Fast Track Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. in Special

Sessions Trial No.12/2018, the appellant has been convicted for the offence

under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and

fine of amount Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine 3 months further R.I. and

also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and fine of amount of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of

fine 3 months further R.I.

Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the

appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been

convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He is in custody since 17.01.2018, therefore, application may be allowed and appellant

may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer

raised by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that on the basis of

statement Sanat Kumar (PW-1), Raju Bargah (PW-7), Deviprasad Kaushik

(PW-16), FSL report (unexhibited) dated 31.05.2018 and on the basis of age of

the prosecutrix / deceased who was aged about 14 years at the time of incident

the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the present appellant and, as such,

the bail application of the appellant deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions and also perused the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature

and gravity of offence and considering statement Sanat Kumar (PW-1), Raju

Bargah (PW-7), Deviprasad Kaushik (PW-16), FSL report (unexhibited) dated

31.05.2018 in which on articles D, E & F i.e. underwear, slide and swab of the

prosecutrix / deceased respectively, stains of semen and human sperm were

found and the age of the prosecutrix / deceased who was aged about 14 years

at the time of incident and further considering the other evidence available on

record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the present appellant. Accordingly,

I.A. No. 1/2021 is rejected.

                       Sd/-                                        Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                       ( Rakesh Mohan Pandey )
                     Judge                                         Judge

Ankit