Chattisgarh High Court
Ramchandra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 January, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 434 of 2022
Ramchandra Yadav S/o Shri Sanatan Yadav, Aged About 50 Years R/o
Sarkanda Seepat Chowk, Near Mukti Dham, P.S. Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) At Present R/o Gupta Dhaba, Amasiwani, P.S.
Vidhanshabha, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Vidhansabha, Tahsil And District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Order Sheet
23/01/2025 Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Learned counsel for the State would submit that the
notice issued to the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2) has been
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
served, but no one appears on her behalf to make submissions
DEWANGAN
on I.A. No. 1 of 2022.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 14.01.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
First Fast Track, Special Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal
Case No. 117 of 2018, the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 363 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of payment of
fine further R.I. for one month.
U/s. 366 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of payment of
fine further R.I. for one month.
U/s. 376 A B of IPC R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.
5000/-, in default of payment of
fine further R.I. for six months.
U/s. 506 of IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of payment of
fine further R.I. for 15 days.
(All sentences are directed to run concurrently)
Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2022, which is an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there
is no cogent and clinching evidence produced by the prosecution
with respect to the age of the victim, though it is stated that the
victim is a minor girl aged about 12 years, but there is no legally
admissible document to prove her age. In fact, she is a major
girl. The school record has not been proved in accordance with
law. She was having love affair with the appellant and herself
eloped with him without raising any objection. Even when she
was allegedly subjected to rape by the appellant, she has not
protested. He would further submit that though the allegation of
rape has been levelled against the appellant, but her MLC report
and FSL report have been found negative and no sperm and
semen were found on her vaginal swab. The appellant is in jail
since 29.04.2018 and final adjudication of the case will take
some more time and considering the period of his detention, he
is entitled for bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
and has submitted that from the school record, the prosecutrix is
found to be minor and aged about 12 years. She was being
kidnapped and subjected to rape by the appellant. Though no
injuries have been found on her body and MLC and FSL report
was found negative, but in every case injuries are not required to
appear in the offence of rape. In the underwear of the
prosecutrix, semen and sperm has been found in FSL report and
looking to the allegation against the appellant, he is not entitled
for bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, considering the nature of the allegation and the
evidence available on record, further considering the evidence
of the prosecutrix, her MLC and FSL report and also
the evidence produced by the prosecution with respect to
the age of the victim, we are inclined to release the appellant on
bail.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence including fine
imposed upon the appellant- Ramchandra Yadav by the learned
trial Court is hereby suspended. He shall be released on bail on
his executing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of
the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24.02.2025. He
shall thereafter, appear before the concerned trial Court on a
date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue
to appear there on all such subsequent dates as are given to him
by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, till final
disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2022 filed by appellant is
allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove
are only confined for disposal of aforesaid I.A. filed in this appeal
and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this
Court on the merits of the matter.
List this matter for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
