Chattisgarh High Court
Durgesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
I.A. No. 1 of 2024
In
CRA No. 7 of 2024
1 - Durgesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ramavtar Yadav Aged About 29 Years
R/o Near Janji Talab Arvind Nagar, Bandhwapara, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
20.06.2024 By the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2023 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge/ First F.T.S.C District Bilaspur, CG in Special Session Trial
No. 121 of 2022 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 376(3)
and 509(B) of IPC and Sections 5(L)/6, 11(3)/12, 14(1), 14(2), 15(1) and
15(2) of POCSO Act and sentencing RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-
u/s 376(3), RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 509(B), RI for 20 years
and fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 5(L)/6, RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s
11(3)/12, RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 14(1), RI for 20 years and
fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 14(2), fine of Rs. 5000/- u/s 15(1) and RI for 3 years
and fine of Rs. 100/- u/s 15(2) of POCSO Act, plus default stipulation.
Case of the prosecution in brief is that mother of the prosecutrix has
lodged the written report before the police station Sarkanda by stating that
the appellant has forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix and also took obscene photographs and video.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the accused/appellant has been implicated in a false case, and that the
FSL report is also negative. He submits that contradictory statement made
by the victim girl and the FIR was lodged after delay of seven months by
mother of the victim (PW-1). It is further submits that the statement of the
accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which it has
been stated that there is love relationship of the appellant with the elder
sister of the victim, because of this, false FIR was lodged. He further
submits that age of the victim is doubtful and for that the sentence may be
suspended and the accused/appellant be bailed out keeping in mind the
fact that the disposal of the appeal is likely to take some more time.
On the other hand, Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, learned PL for the
State/ respondent opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and
submits that the victim was minor at the relevant time and FIR was lodged
after delay of seven months. He further submits that the appellant made
obscene video and photograph and also blackmailing the victim, the
accused/appellant does not deserve the benefit of suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
material available on record, and also looking to the fact that the age of the
prosecutrix to be 13 years and 6 days, evidence available on record, this
Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to suspend the sentence
imposed on the appellant and release him on bail. Accordingly, the
application (IA No. 01/2024) is rejected.
The observation made herein-above in only for the purpose of
deciding the IA No. 01/2024.
List the case for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Pawan
