Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjeev Sunani @ Sujeet Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 February, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
I.A. No. 1 of 2023
In Re:
CRA No. 2302 of 2023
Sanjeev Sunani @ Sujeet Thakur S/o Shri Sukhnandan Thakur Aged
About 40 Years R/o Village Yajuar, P.O.- Buddha Nagar, P.S. Karta,
District- Mujaffarpur, Bihar, Presently R/o Ward No. 14, Doranpal, P.S.
Doranpal, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Doranpal, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
05/02/2025 By the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 02.11.2023, the learned Additional
Session Judge, Fast Track Court, South Bastar,
Digitally
signed by
Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
No. 03 of 2023, has convicted the appellant for the
MORLE Date:
2025.02.05
17:48:16
+0530
offence punishable under Sections 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short,
'POCSO Act') and Section 506-II of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life till natural death and fine amount of
Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional
rigorous imprisonment for 01 year, sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine
amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine
additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year (all the
sentences directed to run concurrently).
Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned
counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed,
learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
respondent/State on the instant application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail (I.A. No. 1 of
2023).
Learned counsel for the convict/appellant has
argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in
the present case and there is no evidence on record to
connect the appellant with commission of the offence. It
is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
that though the appellant is stepfather of the victim and
as per the prosecution case, the age of the victim was 12
years 04 months at the time of incident, but no authentic
documentary proof was produced in order to show that
the victim is a minor girl. He further argued that the DNA
test which was conducted of the fetus of the victim the
same did not match with the appellant. He further stated
that the appellant is in jail since 20.11.2022 and further,
the appeal is likely to take a couple of years or even
more in its final disposal, hence he prays that the
appellant be enlarged on bail. The
Learned State counsel submits that the appellant,
who is the stepfather of the victim has committed sexual
assault with the victim, who is aged about 12 years 04
months at the time of incident and the victim's age was
proved by the school admission & discharge register
(Ex.P/16C) in which date of birth of the victim is
mentioned as 27.10.2010. He also submits that the FIR
was lodged by the wife of the appellant and mother of the
victim and the victim was exploited by the appellant and
the victim before the trial Court also stated that when her
mother would go out for labour work, the appellant would
threaten and intimidate her as also commit wrong acts
with her and establish physical relations. Thus, the
findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and
proper.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records of the Court below.
Considering the material available on record,
particularly the fact that the appellant who is the step
father of the victim has committed sexual assault with the
victim, who is a minor girl aged about 12 years 04
months and before the trial Court victim stated against
the appellant, we deem it appropriate to reject the
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant-Sanjeev Sunani @ Sujeet Thakur.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 stands rejected at
this stage.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
