Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1057 of 2021
Karan Singh Rajput Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
CRA No. 1418 of 2021
Division Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
13.10.2022 Mr. R.K. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1057/2021
and respondent No.2 in CRA No.1418/2021.
Mr. Arjit Tiwari, counsel for the State / respondent.
Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, counsel for the objection in CRA
No.1057/2021 and appellant in CRA No.1418/2021.
CRA No. 1057 of 2021
Heard on I.A. No.1, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 24.08.2021
passed by the Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No.03/2018, the
appellant has been convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/-,
in default of payment of fine amount 1
month additional R.I.
Under Section 294 of IPC R.I. for 1 month
Under Section 323 of IPC R.I. for 3 months
Under Section 342 of IPC R.I. for 3 months
Under Section 506 of IPC R.I. for 6 months
Under Section 3(2)(V) of SC & Imprisonment for life and fine of
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rs.2000/-,in default payment of fine
Act, 1989 amount 01 month additional R.I.
Under Section 3(1)(द) of SC & R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.1000/-,
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) in default of payment of fine amount 15
Act, 1989 days additional R.I.
Under Section 3(1)(ध) of SC & R.I. for 04 years and fine of Rs.1000/-,
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) in default of payment of fine amount 15
Act, 1989 days additional R.I.
Mr. R.K. Agrawal, 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 12.01.2018, therefore, application may be allowed and
appellant may be released on bail.
Per contra, Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned State counsel, and Mr. Rahul
Tamaskar, learned counsel for the objector, oppose the prayer raised by
learned counsel for the appellant and submits on the basis of statement
of prosecutrix / victim (PW-2), Medical examination report (Ex.P/23) and
FSL report (Ex.C/1) 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 the statement of prosecutrix
/ victim (PW-2), Medical examination report (Ex.P/23), in which four
injuries were found on the body of the victim, and FSL report (Ex.C/1) in
which on Article A i.e. slide of the victim, human sperm was found 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 is
rejected.
CRA No. 1418 of 2021
List the matter along with CRA No.1057 of 2021.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) ( Deepak Kumar Tiwari )
Judge Judge
Ankit
