Chattisgarh High Court
Shyamlal Ratre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1396 of 2019
Shyamlal Ratre S/o Chowaram Ratre, aged about 28 years, R/o Village - B.K.
Bahra, Police Station - Khallari, District Mahasamund, C.G. Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station -
Khallari, District Mahasamund, C.G. Respondent
Single Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
22.09.2022 Mr. D.K. Vishwakarma, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State / respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail.
By the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 30.07.2019
passed by the Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences,
Act, 2012), Mahasamund, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No. H-35/2018,
the appellant has been convicted as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 363 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 1
month
Under Section 366 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default
of payment of fine 1 month R.I.
Under Section 376(2)(ढ) R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in
of IPC default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 2
months
Mr. D.K. Vishwakarma, 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.
Appellant is in custody since 29.08.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant
also submits age of the victim / prosecutirx has not been proved as she was
minor at the time of incident even otherwise only on the basis of Kotwari
Panji (Article A-2) age of the victim / prosecutrix is to be less than 18 years
at the time of incident which is perverse finding and the victim was major at
the time of incident. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
in her statement victim / prosecutrix admittedly stated that she was with the
accused from 05.07.2018 to 28.08.2018 which shows that she was a
consenting party and the medical evidence is not supported the case of the
prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 10 years and out of which
he has completed more than 4 years. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that final disposal of the the appeal is likely to take time and,
therefore, application may be allowed and appellant may be released on
bail.
Per contra, Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, opposes the
prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that victim /
prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and in FSL report on articles A
& B petticoat and slide of the victim respectively, stains of semen and
human sperm were found, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted the present appellants and the bail application of the appellant
deserves to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of offence and considering the fact that victim /
prosecutrix in her statement admittedly stated that she was stayed with the
accused from 05.07.2018 to 28.08.2018 and considering the evidence
available regarding age of the prosecutrix; further considering the fact that
maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 10 years out of which he
has completed more than 4 years in custody; further considering that final
disposal of the case is likely to take time and also considering the other
evidence available on record I am inclined to grant bail to the present
appellant - Shyamlal Ratre. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is allowed.
The substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant - Shyamlal
Ratre is suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he is directed
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- along with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court
on 15 th of November, 2022. 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.
However, observation made herein above is only confined to disposal
of bail application and shall not be construed as opinion on merits of the
matter.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
