Chattisgarh High Court
Shantanu Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 946 of 2022
Shantanu Sahu S/o. Madho Prasad Sahu, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Sakri, Police
Station Suhela, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Suhela, District
Balodabazar, Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
22/11/2022 Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. M.L.Saket,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, GA for the State.
Heard on application (I.A. No. 01/2022) under Section
389 CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2022, passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara District
Balodabazar- Bhatapara (CG) in Sessions Trial No.
24/2021, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 376 IPC RI for 10 years and fine of
Rs. 1000/- in default of
payment of fine additional RI
for 3 months.
U/s. 450 IPC RI for 10 years and fine of
Rs. 1000/- in default of
payment of fine additional RI
for 3 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under
Section 161 CrPC before the Court wherein she has stated
that she has not raised any alarm for objecting the appellant
and in this regard no such evidence was brought by the
prosecution on record. He further submits that the
prosecution has narrated the story, it is not possible for 80
years old lady to jump the wall of certain height where there
exists no ladder within short time in front of appellant who
was stated to be standing there when victim was allowed to
answer the call of nature. He further submits that in the list
of witnesses, the prosecution has mentioned the name of
Dr. Rupali Sahu but without any intimation the name has
been changed as Dr. Pallavi Yadav (PW-17). He would
further submit that the doctor (PW-17) was cross-examined
wherein the doctor has not found any injuries on the private
part of the prosecutrix and stated that cervical examination
was not done by the prosecution. He further submit that
there was enmity between the family members of the
appellant and the prosecutrix, therefore, the appellant was
implicated in this case and would pray for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned State counsel while opposing the bail
application would submit that the prosecution has proved its
case and examination of the doctor without mentioning the
name is not fatal one for the prosecution and the witnesses
who have been examined before the Court have
categorically stated the guilt of the appellant, therefore,
applicaton for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant may be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the entire record carefully.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
under Section 161 CrPC, wherein she has not raised any
alarm to prevent herself from the alleged offence and the
fact that the doctor who has examined the prosecutrix has
not found any injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix
and also considering the fact that the appeal is of the year
2022 and hearing of the appeal will likely to take some time
for its disposal, therefore, I am inclined to allow this
application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is
directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of
this appeal and he shall be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety like
sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on
05.01.2023. He shall thereafter continue to appear before
the trial Court on all such subsequent dates as are given to
him by the trial Court till the disposal of this appeal.
List this case for final hearing.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
