Chattisgarh High Court
Navin Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 516 of 2022
• Smt. Vrindavati W/o Santosh Giri Goswami Aged About 50 Years R/o Village-
Chakrda, Thana Saraypali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Basna, Distt. Mahasamund
(C.G.).
---- Respondent
WITH
CRA No. 421 of 2022
• Smt. Neelandri W/o Jaldhar Giri Goswami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Bansuladipa Police Station - Basna District - Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Basna District -
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondent
WITH
• Navin Sahu S/o Dhanu Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Nanakpali Police Station Saraypali District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Basna, District
Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondent
25.06.2024
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellant in CRA
No.516/2022.
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, counsel for the appellant in
CRA No.421/2022.
Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr.
Anand Mohan Tiwari, counsel for the appellant in CRA
No.657/2022.
Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2022 passed in
Special Criminal POCSO Case No.23/2018 by the learned
Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012), Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), the appellants
stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
Smt. Vrindavati & Smt. Neelandri
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/S 363/109 of the RI for 05 years and In default of payment
IPC fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 02
(each appellant) months
U/S 366/109 of the RI for 05 years and In default of payment
IPC fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 02
(each appellant) months
U/S 17 of the RI for 10 years and In default of payment
POCSO, Act fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 02
(each appellant) months
Navin Sahu
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/S 363 of the IPC RI for 05 years and In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 02
months
U/S 366 of the IPC RI for 05 years and In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
Rs.500/- additional RI for 02
months
U/S 376 of the IPC RI for 10 years and In default of payment
fine amount of of fine amount
(In place of 6 of the Rs.500/- additional RI for 02
POCSO Act as months
contend under
Section 42 of the
POCSO Act)
Learned counsels for the appellants submits that the
appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in
the judgment without there being any sufficient and clinching
evidence available on record. It is further submitted by him
that the trial Court has overlooked the fact that the prosecution
has failed to proof the age of the victim whereas at the time of
incident, she was a major girl. They further submitted that the
statement witnesses are not reliable. Finally, it is submitted by
them that Appellants- Smt. Neelandri & Navin Sahu are in jail
since 12.07.2018 and Appellant- Smt. Vrindavati is in jail since
11.02.2022, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence imposed
upon them by the trial Court may be suspended and they may
be granted benefit of bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/State opposes the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective appellants.
I have learned counsels for the respective parties and
perused the record of the trial Court as well as other materials
available on record with utmost circumspection. On perusal of
the records and statement of the witnesses, I am of the view
that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellants, during
the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2022 is rejected.
List these cases for final hearing in the month of August,
2024.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
