Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Navrange vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1824 of 2023
Jitendra Navrange S/o Lakhanlal Navrange Aged around 26 Years R/o
Mandir Hasoud, Near Jai Stambh Chowk, P.S. Mandir Hasoud, District
Raipur C.G. Presently Residing At Sirsakala, Satnamipara, P.S. Bhilai (Old),
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
25/02/2025 Heard Ms. Sheetal Soni, learned counsel for the appellant
(through Video Conferencing) as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma,
learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, on IA No. 1, which is
an application under Section 3899 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 31.07.2023 passed in Special Criminal Case
(POCSO) No. 120/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
4th FTSC Durg, District Durg, the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction under Section Sentence
366, 34 of the Indian Penal : Rigorous imprisonment (for short,
Code (for short, the IPC)
RI) for 3 years with fine of Rs.
100/-. In default, 1 month RI more.
4 of the Protection of Children : RI for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-. In
from Sexual Offences Act, default, 1 year RI more.
2012 (for short, the POCSO
Act)
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant
alongwith co-accused Anju Naurange abducted the victim aged
about 14 years from the lawful custody of her guardian to a distant
place and committed rape upon her.
Learned counsel for the convict/appellant has argued that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There are
discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses and there is
no eye witness to the incident. Even if the commission of sexual
intercourse is admitted, the same was consensual in nature and
there is no evidence on record to establish that the victim was minor
on the date of incident. There are omissions and contradictions in
the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant is in jail
since 03.05.2022 and the final conclusion of the appeal may take
some time and hence, it is prayed that the appellant may released
on bail during pendency of this appeal.
On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel
Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail
and submits that the learned trial Court, after due appreciation of
evidence and statement of witnesses have arrived at a finding of
guilt of the appellant which warrants no interference.
It submitted by Mr. Sharma that the father/complainant (PW-
2) has been duly served in pursuance of the order dated 22.09.2023
passed by this Court. However, none has appeared on behalf of the
complainant.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, and considering the nature of allegation
against the appellant that he enticed the minor victim girl and took
her away from the lawful custody of her guardian and thereafter
committed rape upon her with the assistance of her wife co-accused
Anju Naurange, and further in view of the deposition made by the
victim herself before the learned trial Court where there is clear and
unambiguous statement made with regard to commission of rape by
the appellant in presence of her wife co-accused Anju Naurange and
also looking to the conduct of the appellant that he absconded
during the investigation and was arrested only on 03.05.2022 and
the trial of the co-accused was conducted separately and after
conviction of the co-accused wife Anju Naurange under Sections
363 read with Section 34, 366A read with Section 34 and Section 4
read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, by the learned trial Court,
the appeal filed by the co-accused before the learned Single Judge
of the High Court vide Cr.A. No. 244/2018 has also been rejected
vide order dated 02.05.2023, we deem it appropriate to reject the
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this
stage.
Accordingly, IA No. 1 stands disposed of.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing after six weeks.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
