Chattisgarh High Court
Uday Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 110 of 2022
• Uday Singh Rajput S/o Shri Jaipal Singh Rajput Aged About 19 Years R/o Village
Amlidih, Police Station Saja, Distirct Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saja, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent
7-
29-11-2022 Mr. Jitendra Shukla, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, PL for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.1 of 2022 which is an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant stands convicted by the Judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 23-12-2021 passed by the Special Judge
(POCS0 Act 2012) (FTC) Bemetara District Bemetara (CG) in Special
Session Trial No.46 of 2019 as under.
S.No. Conviction Sentence
1) Under Section 363 of the RI for 1 year and fne of
IPC Rs.100/-, in default of fne
amount, to undergo additional
RI for three months.
2) Under Section 366 of the RI for 3 years and fne of
IPC Rs.200/-, in default of fne
amount, to undergo additional
RI for six months.
3) Under Section 376(2)(J)(N) RI for 10 years and fne of
of the IPC Rs.100/-, in default of fne
amount, to undergo additional
RI for three months.
4) Under Section 6 of POCSO RI for 10 years and fne of
Act 2012. Rs.1000/-, in default of fne
amount, to undergo additional
RI for three months.
All the sentences are directed
to run concurrently.
In pursuance of the earlier order passed by this court,
Victim/prosecutrix has appeared before this court through Video
Conferencing from concerned District Legal Services Authority and
she has raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the
evidence of Doctor Neelam Madariya (PW/9) there is no evidence on
record that either any external or internal injury was sustained in
private part of the victim by the appellant and the evidence shows
that hymen was intact which shows that there was no forcible
sexual intercourse and even the trial court while convicting the
appellant has recorded a finding in para 47 of the judgment that the
conduct of the victim seems to be consensual and looking to the age
of the prosecutrix below 18 years on the date of incident the trial
court has convicted the appellant. If this aspect of the matter is to
be seen then the medical opinion has to be considered and from
the medical report of the Doctor (PW/9) it is quite clear that there
is no either external or internal injury found in the private part of the
victim and hymen was intact, therefore no ofence under Section 376
IPC is made out. He would further submit that the appellant is in jail
since 6-6-2019 to 11-6-2019 and even after pronouncement of the
judgment dated 23-12-2021 till date, the appeal is of 2022 and
hearing of appeal on merits will take some time, therefore, the
appellant may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail
application would submit that there is sufficient material against the
appellant to prove that he committed rape on victim, therefore, he
may not be released on bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the
statement of the victim and further considering the medical report of
the Doctor Neelam Madariya (PW/9) that there is no injury either
external or internal found in the private part of the victim and hymen
was intact, as such it cannot be said that victim was subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse and also considering the statement of PW/
6 Principal of School who was cross examined by the prosecution to
prove the date of birth of the victim, has admitted in the cross
examination that he has recorded the date of birth of the victim on
oral information given by the father of the victim and has also
admitted that no document with regard to date of birth has been
produced by them and has also admitted that in the villages parents
of the children at the time of admission of their children in schools
record the date of birth of their children by reducing their age and
further considering the fact that he has already undergone more
than three years jail sentence and also the fact that hearing of
appeal will take some time, I am inclined to allow the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 1 of 2022 is allowed and it is directed that
the execution of further substantive jail sentence shall remain
suspended and the appellant shall be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 17-1-2023. 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. It is made clear that for appearance of the accused before
the trial court, the interval between the dates to be given by the trial
court shall not be less than 90 days.
List this case for fnal hearing in its chronological order.
Cc as per rules.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
