Chattisgarh High Court
Vishal Kashyap @ Ramsharan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 2020
Vishal Kashyap @ Ramsharan, Aged about-34 Years, S/o Sukhiram
Kashyap, R/o Village - Katnai, P.S. - Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through- S.H.O. P.S. Akaltara, Dist.- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
---- Respondent
30.11.2022 Mr. Ravindra Sharma, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer for the State / respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 1/2020, which is an application under Section 389
of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellant during pendency of the appeal.
By way of filing this criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
26.11.2020 passed by Special Judge under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in
Special Sessions Case No. 24/2018, whereby he has been convicted and
sentenced in the following manner :
Sr.No. Section Act Jail sentence Fine sentence Default
stipulation
1. 452 Indian Penal Code Two year RI Rs.500/- Three month
additional RI
2. 4 POCSO Act Seven year RI Rs.500/- Three month
additional RI
Both the jail sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that age of the
victim/prosecutrix has not been proved conclusively by the prosecution.
Victim/prosecutrix (PW-3) is not knowing about her date of birth. Even her
mother Kiran (PW-4) could not have stated about the age of the victim, as she
is illiterate lady. It is further submitted that brother of victim has been shown
primary witness but he has not been examined by the prosecution and even no
injury was found by Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-5) on medical examination of the
victim/prosecutrix, which was conducted on very next day of alleged incident,
hence, the appellant has a good case to get success in this appeal. It is
submitted that maximum sentence, which has been awarded to the appellant, is
of 7 years whereas he has completed more than three years & 14 days of his
jail sentence. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is not likely to be heard
finally in near future, hence, remaining jail sentence may be suspended till
disposal of this appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by counsel for the appellant.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
Considering the statement of Dr. Mamta Jagat (PW-5), who examined
victim/prosecutrix on very next day of incident and also considering the fact that
brother of victim, who is said to be the primary witness, has not been examined
in this case. Further, considering the fact that appellant has completed more
than three years & 14 days of his jail sentence and final hearing of this appeal
is likely to take considerable time, hence, I am inclined to suspend the sentence
and released the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2020 is allowed.
It is directed that execution of substantive jail sentences imposed on the
appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/-
with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The
appellant shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 24 th January, 2023
and thereafter he shall appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by
the Registry on this behalf and shall continue to appear there on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till disposal of the
appeal. It is made clear that interval of the appearance of the appellant could
not be less than period of six months.
List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
D/-
