Chattisgarh High Court
Saukhi Lal Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 418 of 2021
Saukhi Lal Satnami,S/o. Kirit Ram Satnami, Aged about 30 years, Resident
of Village Kurwa, P.S. Nandghat, District Kawardha (CG).
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Nandghat District Bemetara
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
23/11/2022 Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, PL for the State.
Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate for the objector.
Heard on application (I.A. No. 01/2021) under Section
389 CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed by
Fast Track Court Special Judge under POCSO Act 2012,
Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Special Sessions Trial
No. 31/2016, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced
as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 376 (2)(j)(n) IPC RI for 10 years and fine of
Rs. 1000/- in default of
payment of fine additional RI
for 3 years.
U/s. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 RI for 10 years and fine of
Rs. 1000/- in default of
payment of fine additional RI
for 3 years.
With a direction to run the
sentences concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
prosecutrix (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief has
categorically stated that she was in love relation with the
appellant and has voluntarily gone with the appellant to Jam
Nagar, where they were living like husband and wife and the
appellant has not done sexual intercourse with her. He would
further submit that Dr. Anamika Minj (PW-8) has not given
any definite opinion with regard to sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix still the trial court has convicted the appellant. He
would further submit that the prosecutrix has not supported
the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. He would
further submit that the appellant has already undergone 2
years and 4 months of jail imprisonment, the appeal is of
year 2021 and final hearing of the appeal will take some time
and would pray for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the
objector opposes the bail application would submit that the
victim was minor and has recently completed 18 years of
age, therefore, the trial Court has not given due weightage to
the version of the prosecutrix and has rightly convicted the
appellant, therefore, they would pray for rejection of
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the entire record carefully.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and considering the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-
1) wherein she has turned hostile and has not suported the
case of the prosecution, further considering the fact that Dr.
Anamika Minj (PW-8) has not given any definite opinion with
regard to sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and also
considering the fact that the appeal is of the year 2021 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.
It is made clear that the dates given by the concerned
Court for appearance of the appellant should not have
interval of more than 90 days from previous dates.
List this case for final hearing.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
