Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 76 of 2025
• Mukesh Pandey S/o Radheshyam Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o
Rakesh Kirana Shop Gali, Bauripara, P.S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.).
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Order Sheet
04/08/2025 Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2024, application under Section 430 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No.43/2017, appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under :-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
01. U/s. 450 of the R.I. for 5 years with fine of
Indian Penal Code, Rs.1,000/- and in default of
1860 now Section payment of fine, additional
332(b) of Bhartiya R.I. for 6 months.
Nyay Sanhita
02. U/s. 376 (2) (ठ) read R.I. for 10 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of
with of Indian Penal payment of fine, additional
Code, 1860 now R.I. for 6 months.
Section 64 of
Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita
All sentences are directed to be run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant
has falsely been implicated in crime question, as the prosecution
has failed to prove the case against the appellant. She further
submits that (PW-4), who is mother of the victim has not supported
the case of prosecution and has completely turned hostile and other
witnesses also have turned hostile. It is further submitted that victim
is deaf and dumb, who does not understand the signal or sign
language and according to her statement, offence of 376(2)(ठ) is not
made out against the appellant. She further submitted that there are
various contradictions and omissions in the statement of
prosecution witnesses. It is further submits that appellant has a
good case to get success in appeal. Therefore, she prays that
application for suspension of sentence of the appellant may be
allowed and sentence may be suspended till the decision of this
appeal.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant and
submits that the victim/prosecutrix (PW-2), who is deaf and dumb,
herself has admitted in her deposition through sign language in
presence of Expert Smt. Sandhya Tiwari recorded under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. that appellant had committed rape on her. She further
submits that FSL report (Ex.P/16) is also positive, hence, application
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant is liable
to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
Taking into consideration the facts of the case, particularly
considering the fact that victim/prosecutrix supported in her
depositing through sign language in present of Expert and most
importantly considering the fact that FSL report vide Ex.P/16 is also
positive, hence, I do not feel inclined to allow the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
In view of above, I.A. No.1/2024, application under Section
430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail stands rejected.
List the case for final hearing in its chronological order.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Digitally
DEEPTI signed
by
JHA DEEPTI
NIRALA JHA
NIRALA
