Chattisgarh High Court
Phoolchand Ahileshwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 January, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 20 of 2025
1. Phoolchand Ahileshwar, S/o Shivkumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village
Gorakhpur, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
2. Rupchand Ahileshwar, S/o Shivkumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Gorakhpur, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
... Appellants
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
Order Sheet
08/01/2025 Mr. Sushobhit Singh, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.2/2024, application for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal.
Counsel for the appellants would submit that appellants were
pursuing their study when impugned judgment (Annexure-A/1)
rendered on 03.11.2023 by Special Judge (Protection of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012), District Kabirdham (C.G.). They
were not properly advised by their counsel, therefore, despite their
conviction only for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, to which,
they have been convicted till rising of the Court and fine was
imposed upon them of Rs.1,000/- each. He further submits that due
to aforesaid reason and lack of procedural knowledge appellants
could not filed the appeal in time. It is further submitted that, if delay
is not condoned, then conviction and sentence may hammer their
carrier to get government job, therefore, he prays that the delay of
353 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.
State counsel opposes the I.A. No.2/2024 as well as the
submission made by the counsel for the appellants.
Having considered the minor punishment and contentions
made by the counsel for the appellants, I.A. No.2/2024, application
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and the
delay of 353 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Also heard on admission.
Admit.
Issue notice to the respondent.
Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of
State/respondent, therefore, issuance of notice to it, is dispensed
with.
Also heard on I.A. No.1/2024, application for suspension of
sentence under 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned
Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012) District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case
No.310/2021, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as
under :-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
01. U/s. 323 of IPC (for Till rising the Court and
both the appellants) fine amount of Rs.1,000/-
in default of fine amount
additional Imprisonment
for 1 month (for both the
appellants separately).
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that both
the appellants are residents of same village and dispute has been
occurred on a trivial issue. Appellants have been implicated only
because they are family members of the main accused/Laxmi
Narayan. He further submits that appellants have been convicted
only for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentence for 'Till
Rising of the Court' with fine of Rs.1,000/- each. It is further
submitted that appellants are young boys aged about 26 years and
27 years respectively. Appellant No.1/Phoolchand Ahileshwar has
been selected for the post of government teacher and Appellant
No.2/Rupchand Ahileshwar is also pursuing for competitive
examination, therefore, if judgment of conviction of appellants is not
suspended, then it may be harmful for their future, as conviction
can be treated as stigma upon their carrier. Hence, counsel for the
appellants submit that impugned judgment of conviction dated
03.11.2023 may be suspended till final disposal of the appeal, as
the sentence has already been executed.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants and
submits that appellants are relatives of main accused/Laxmi
Narayan, who molested the minor victim and when family members
of victim/prosecutrix had gone to raise complaint to the family
members of appellants, they assaulted the victim party, in which,
appellants were actively involved, therefore, the application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants is liable
to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
Taking into consideration, the conviction of appellants only
for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and no criminal
antecedents of appellants have been shown, therefore, in view of
above contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants, I feel
inclined to allow the I.A. No.1/2024.
In view of above, I.A. No.1/2024, application for suspension
of sentence under 430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 and grant of bail to the appellants is allowed and the effect of
judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012) District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case
No.310/2021 for conviction of appellants shall remain suspended till
disposal of this appeal.
Call for records of the concerned Special Court.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI NIRALA
DEEPTI JHA
JHA Date:
NIRALA 2025.01.09
17:05:48
+0530
