Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2025
1
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2025.06.25
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
16:49:54
+0530
CRA No. 119 of 2025
Amit Gupta S/o Shri Shankar Prasad Gupta Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Place
Ward No.4, Arjun Nagar Next To Mpeb Office, Police Station Civil Line, District - Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh). Current Residence - Rawatpura Sarkar Ashram Dhaneli, Police
Station Mujgahan, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
24/06/2025 Heard Mr. Ram Mani Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant
appeared through video conferencing and Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel
Lawyer for the State/respondent.
Also heard on I.A. No.2/2025, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
09.08.2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track
Special Court(POCSO), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Special
Criminal Case "POCSO" No.55/2020 has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 363 of the IPC 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and
in default, further R.I. for 1 month
Under Section 366 of the IPC 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and
in default, further R.I. for 1 month
Under Section 376(3) of the IPC 20 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default, further R.I. for 4
months
Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act 20 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default, further R.I. for 4
months
All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no doubt the
victim is minor girl, but the appellant has been falsely implicated in the
case only on the ground that he failed to fulfill the demand of money. He
would submit that the appellant is in detention since 12/02/2020 and as
such, he may be released on bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State vehementally oppose the
bail application. He would submit that as per the documentary evidence,
the age of the victim is 13 years 9 months. Mother of victim also stated
that the date of birth of victim is 12/04/2006. Learned counsel would
submit that from the evidence of the victim PW-1, it is apparent that she
left the house with annoyance because her parents are not allowing her
to use mobile etc. In the evidence, victim also stated that she met the
appellant in a train while going to Nagpur, where he assured her that he
will arrange a job for her and thereafter, he took her to a guest house on
28/01/2020, where he committed sexual intercourse with her and
subsequently, they left the guest house on 29/01/2020. He would submit
that the FSL report is positive.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and
particularly considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant
and considering the evidence of the victim PW-1 and the FSL report, we
are not inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A.2/2025 is rejected.
Since the record of the trial Court has already been received and
paperbook has also been prepared, the matter be posted for final hearing
on 15/07/2025.
SD/- SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Gowri/
Amardeep
