Radheshyam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1342 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Radheshyam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 January, 2025

                                                   1




               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            CRA No. 5 of 2025

Radheshyam Sahu S/o Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years Village
Mujgahan, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
                                                                        ... Appellant(s)
                                                 versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Arjuni,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ... Respondent(s)

Order Sheet

21/01/2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent.

Heard.

Admit.

Heard on IA No.01/2024, application under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, FTC, Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (CG) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.27/2024, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

              BINI    PRADEEP
              PRADEEP Date:
                      2025.01.22
                         10:20:57 +0530


    Conviction          Sentence      Fine       Default
    u/s.

    452 IPC         RI for 06      Rs.500/-   Imprisonment
                    months                    for 01 month
    354 IPC         RI for 01      Rs.1000/- Imprisonment
                    year                     for 03 months
    08 of POCSO RI for 03          Rs.1000/- Imprisonment
    Act         years                        for six months

All the above sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 03 years and except the prosecutrix, there is no other eye witness to the incident. He would further submit that the defence witnesses have proved that the victim was talking to someone on mobile late at night, therefore, being neighbour, the appellant raised objection, as such, the victim implicated him in the instant case. Hence, it is prayed that application for suspension of sentence may be allowed and sentence may be suspended till disposal of this appeal.

In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that the victim is minor girl of 14-15 years and both the parties are neighbours. There is no occasion for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. She would further submit that impugned judgment is based on evidence, therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

Though the appellant has been convicted for maximum sentence of three years and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently, but having considered the deposition of the

victim, at this stage I am not inclined to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant. Hence, IA No.01/2024 is rejected.

However, the appellant may revive his prayer if the case is not taken for final hearing after six months.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

Bini