Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 June, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
I.A. No. 1 of 2024
In Re:
CRA No. 823 of 2024
X (Other details of the appellant are being omitted due to him being the
relating of the victim)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kharora, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
26/06/2025 By the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 28.02.2024, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (1st Fast Track Special
Court) (POCSO Act), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in
BRIJMOHAN Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 59 of 2020, has
MORLE
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 366, 376(3) read with Section 4(2) of
the POCSO Act, Sections 5(L) & 6 and Sections 5(N)
and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of
Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional
rigorous imprisonment for 02 months, rigorous
imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in
default of payment of fine additional rigorous
imprisonment for 06 months, rigorous imprisonment for
20 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment
of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months
and rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional
rigorous imprisonment for 06 months (all sentences to
run concurrently).
Heard Mr. Adhiraj Surana, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned
Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State on
the instant application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail (I.A. No. 1 of 2024).
Learned counsel for the convict / appellant has
argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in
the present case and there is no evidence on record to
connect the appellant with commission of the offence.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant that though the appellant is related to the
victim, but her evidence does not borne into the
category of sterling witness as she has accompanied
the appellant at Raipur and stayed with him for two
days and further, she stated that she raised an alarm
for several times, but it goes to show that the said
statement which have been made appears to be an
afterthought, as she had travelled with the appellant
with a public transport i.e. train. He further submits that
it is a case of false implication, as there is some
dispute between the parties with respect to the
property. He further contended that no injury was found
on the private part of the victim as per the report given
by the Dr. Divya Joshi (PW-7), who examine the victim.
He also submits that the appellant has no criminal
antecedent and the appellant is in jail since 20.03.2020
and further, the appeal is likely to take a couple of
years or even more in its final disposal, hence he prays
that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
On the other, learned State counsel opposes the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant
and submits that the victim is minor girl aged about 15
years 04 months at the time of incident and the same is
fortified by Ex.P/16 i.e. School Admission-Discharge
Register in which the date of birth of the victim is
mentioned as 02.12.2005, which makes it crystal clear
that the victim is minor on the date of incident. He
further submits that FSL report (Ex.P/34) of the victim
is also positive, therefore, the findings arrived at by the
learned trial Court is just and proper.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the documents appended with the bail
application.
Considering the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, also considering the
evidence available on record and the fact that the no
injury was found on the private part of the victim and It
is evident that she has accompanied with the appellant
at Raipur and stayed with him for two days and
thereafter, in her evidence she stated that she raised
an alarm for several times, but it goes to show that the
said statement which have been made appears to be
an afterthought, as she had travelled with the appellant
with a public transport i.e. train. Further, the appellant
has no criminal antecedents and the appellant is in jail
since 20.03.2020 and further hearing of this appeal
would take prolonged period of time, we deem it
appropriate to allow the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the
appellant.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence
awarded to appellant-X by the learned trial Court is
hereby suspended. He shall be released on bail on his
executing bail bond with two sureties to the satisfaction
of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 04.08.2025. 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 06 months, till final disposal of this
appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 is allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made
herein-above 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.
C.C. as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
