Bijendra Malar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 354 Chatt

                                                1

                                                                                     NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     CRA No. 47 of 2020

    Bijendra Malar, S/o Late Raghuvar Malar, aged about 19 Years, R/o Village
     Pokharatoli, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh at Present R/o
     Gangikot, Junapara, Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur. Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                ----Appellant

                                            Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                             ---- Respondent

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

17/01/2023 Mr. A.K. Prasad, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A. for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2020, application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2019 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Surajpur, District Surajpur,

C.G., in Sessions Trial No. 64/2018, the appellant stands convicted and

sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 363 of Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for Penal Code seven years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I.

for 15 days

Under Section 366 of Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for ten Penal Code years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 15 days

Under Section 376(3) of Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for Penal Code twenty years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I.

for 15 days

Under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Rigorous Imprisonment for ten 2012 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 15 days

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not

properly appreciated the overall evidence available on record for holding

the appellant guilty. He further submits that there are major contradictions

and omissions in the statements of the victim and other witnesses. No

documentary evidence was given by parents of the victim regarding her

age. The appellant is in jail since 11.11.2018, therefore, application may be

allowed and the appellant be released on bail. Reliance has been placed on

the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of C. Doddanarayana

Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others vs. C. Jayarama

Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others reported in (2020) 4

SCC 659.

On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes the bail

application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the

gravity of the offence, the fact that the victim was minor on the date of

incident and further considering the statement of victim, her date of birth

proved by PW-4 Ramashankar Yadav vide Ex.P6C, the FSL report dated

10.01.2019 by which the vaginal slides of the victim as well as the stains of

semen and human sperms of the appellant are found, we are not inclined to

grant bail to the present appellant. Accordingly, the application (I.A.

No.01/2020) is rejected.

                         Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                 (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                   (Radhakishan Agrawal)
                       Judge                                 Judge




Akhilesh