Kartik Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2243 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Kartik Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 March, 2025

                                    1/4




        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         CRA No. 2245 of 2024

      KARTIK RAM SAHU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                              Order Sheet



04/03/2025         Mr. Ramsajiwan, counsel for the Appellant.

                   Ms. Sunita Manikpur. Dy. G.A. for the State

             /respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, application under Section

430 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension

of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 27.01.2024 passed

by the learned Additional Additional Sessions Judge Fast

Track (Special) Court (POCSO Act), Bemetara (C.G.) in

Sessions Trial No.39/2023, appellant stands convicted for

the offence punishable mentioned as under:

Conviction Sentence U/s. 450 of the Indian Penal R.I. for 05 years & fine of

Code. Rs.500/- and in default of

payment of fine amount

additional R.I. for 02 months.

U/s. 376(2)(J)(L), 376(3) R.I. for 10 years & fine of

read with Section 511 of the Rs.500/- and in default of

Indian Penal Code. payment of fine amount

additional R.I. for 02 months.

U/s. 6 read with Section 18 R.I. for 10 years & fine of

of Protection of Children Rs.500/- and in default of

from Sexual Offences Act, payment of fine amount

2012 on violation of Section additional R.I. for 02 months.

5 (ट) of POCSO Act All sentences are to be run-concurrently

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits

that the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the trial

Court without there being any clinching evidence available

on record against him. He further contended that the

appellant is in jail since 13.10.2023 and the appeal will take

some more time for its final conclusion/disposal, therefore, it

is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant by

the learned trial Court may be kept in abeyance and he may

be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent/State opposed the argument advanced by the

counsel for the appellant and supports the judgment of

conviction passed by the trial Court. He further submits that

the prosecutrix/victim was tried to be raped by the accused

and also the age of prosecutrix is about 13 years, therefore

he is not entitled for grant benefit of suspension of the

sentence.

Vide order dated 20.01.2025, state counsel is

directed to inform the father of the victim/prosecutrix,

however, no one appeared on behalf of the victim. In such

circumstances, Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, who is

present in the Court is appointed as amicus curiae to assist

the Court on behalf of the victim.

After going through the documents available on

record, Ms Verma, opposes the prayer and submissions

made by learned counsel for the applicant.

I have heard both counsel for the parties.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the

case, contention raised by the parties, the nature of incident

and act committed by the appellant, particularly, the

conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 of IPC,

376(2)(J)(L), 376(3) read with Section 511 of IPC, Section 6

read with Section 18 of POCSO on violation Section 5 (ट) of

POCSO, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

present applicant is not entitled for benefit of suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

In view of the above, I.A. No.01/2024, I.A.

No.01/2024, application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

List this case for final hearing after two weeks.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

Saxena