Chattisgarh High Court
Paltan Ram Chakradhari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2163 of 2024
1 - Paltan Ram Chakradhari S/o Jhagruram Chakradhari Aged About 54
Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Umesh Kumar Chakradhari S/o Paltan Ram Chakradhari Aged About
24 Years R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Nohar Yadav S/o Santram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
4 - Hemin Bai W/o Paltan Ram Chakradhari Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
5 - Anita Nishad W/o Gunendra Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.
6 - Giteshwar Kumar Netam S/o Milan Singh Netam Aged About 20 Years
R/o Village Karchali, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant (s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
11.03.2025 Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, counsel for the
appellants.
ARUN
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
State/respondent.
Heard on application for interim suspension of
sentence.
By the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Special Court (POCSO & Rape Cases), Gariyaband (C.G.)
in POCSO Case No. 100/2020, the appellants stand
convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 147/149 IPC : S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.
500/- to all appellants. In default S.I.
for 1 month.
U/s 148/149 IPC : S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.
500/- to all appellants. In default S.I.
for 1 month.
U/s 323/149 IPC : S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.
500/- to all appellants. In default S.I.
for 1 month.
U/s 325/149 IPC : R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-
to all appellants. In default S.I. for 1
month.
U/s 354/149 IPC : S.I. for 1 month each to appellant-
Umesh Chakradhari & Giteshwar
Kumar Netam.
U/s 8 of POCSO : R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-
Act each to appellants- Umesh
Chakradhari & Giteshwar Kumar
Netam.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated
in the crime in question. He would further submit that there is
contradiction and omission in statement of the victim and
other witnesses, therefore, benefit should be given to the
appellants. He would further submit that the minority of the
victim was not proved by any documents and even no
ossification test was conducted. He would further submit that
no independent witness has been examined by the
prosecution though names of Keshav Nishad & Gewar
Nishad were mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the case of the
prosecution is doubtful. He would further submit that the
learned trial Court has disbelieved the story of defence
which is probable one but accepted the story of prosecution
being improbable. He would further submit that a copy of the
FIR was never sent to the concerned magistrate and there is
no mentioned about sexual assault of molestation in
Mulahiza Tahrir and even victim's father has not deposed
anything in his statement regarding sexual assault and
molestation. He would further submit that if there had been a
sexual assault then medical examination should have been
done by a lady doctor but in the present case, the same has
not been done which clearly creates doubt in prosecution
case. He would further submit that no CT scan/X-ray of
injured i.e. complainant's brother was done nor any evidence
has been produced to show that injured was underwent any
medical treatment despite this, the learned trial Court has
convicted the appellants under Sections 325 of IPC, which is
not just and proper. He would further submit that the victim in
her statement has stated about her Salvaar whereas in item
of seizure, Kamij has been seized not Salvaar. He would
further submit that in so many cases, this Court has
suspended the sentences to the accused in case where the
accused had awarded maximum three years of sentence.
He would further submit that trial will take sometime for its
final conclusion and would pray for suspension of sentence
awarded to the appellants.
Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that
the victim in her statement has clearly deposed the manner
how the incident has taken place and she has stating that
appellants- Giteshwar Dhruv, Nohar Yadav & Umesh
Chakradhari assaulted her by bricks looking with bad
intentions, grabbed her hands, arms, thighs and breasts and
tore her salwaar. He would further submit that victim's
statement is sufficient to establish how she was subjected to
assault by the appellants. He would further submit that the
learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and
material placed on record and also looking to the gravity of
offence committed by the appellants, has passed the
impugned order, which does not warrant any interference by
this Court, therefore, this appellants are not entitled for grant
of bail.
The victim is present before this Court through Video
Conferencing through concerned DLSA along with her father
and raised objection in suspending the sentence awarded to
the appellant as also releasing.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents placed on record.
From perusal of impugned order, it is quite vivid that
after appreciating the evidence and material placed on
record, the impugned order has been passed. The victim
has categorically stated about conduct of the appellant and
the circumstances in which, the offence has been
committed, which remained unshaken in the cross-
examination. The victim in her statement in paragraph 1 has
stated about conduct of the appellants which reads as
under:-
"1- eSa vkjksih dks tkurh gwa mDr lHkh esjs gh xako ds jgus okys
gSaA eSa orZeku esa ch0,0 izFke o"kZ esa v/;;ujr gwaA esjh tUefrfFk
09 vDVwcj 2002 gSA fnukad 08@09@2020 dks 'kke 06%30 cts
lHkh vkjksihx.k esjs ?kj ds lkeus vkdj esjs iwjs ifjokj ds yksxks
dks xanh xanh xkfy;ak fn;s FksA vkjksihx.k ds 'kksj 'kjkck dks
lqudj eaS] esjs eEeh ikik rFkk ifjokj ds vU; yksx ?kj ls ckgj
vius ikspZ ds ikl rd fudys FksA esjs firk th ds }kjk
vkjksihx.k dks xkyh xykSp djus ls euk dh x;h Fkh rc
vkjksihx.k esa ls iyVu pdz/kkjh esjh eEeh dks gkFk idM+dj mls
gkFk eqDdk ls ekjkA vkjksih fxrs'oj /kzqo] uksgj ;kno rFkk mes'k
pdz/kkjh ds }kjk eq>s bZV iRFkj ls ekjihV dh x;h rFkk mes'k
pdz/kkjh vkSj fxrs'oj /kzqo }kjk eq>s xyr utfj;s ls ns[krs gq,
esjs gkFk cakg] tak?k ,oa Lru dks idM+dj esjs }kjk igus lyokj
dks QkM+ fn;k x;k FkkA mDr Fkh ?kVuk ls Hk;Hkhr gksdj eSa
csgks'k gks x;h FkhA"
The victim was unshaken during cross-examination
wherein it has been stated in paragraph 12 as under :-
"12- ;g dguk xyr gS fd vkjksih mes'k pdz/kkjh ,oa fxrs'oj
/kzqo }kjk xyr utfj;s ls ns[krs gq, esjs gkFk cakg] tak?k ,oa Lru
dks idM+dj esjs }kjk igus lyokj dks ugh QkM+k x;k FkkA eSus
iqfyl dks c;ku nsrs le; vkjksih mes'k pdz/kkjh ,oa fxrs'oj /kzqo
}kjk esjs lyokj dks QkM+ nsus okyh ckr crk;k Fkk ;fn mDr
ckr Hkh mDr rjhds ls esjs iqfyl c;ku esa u fy[kh gks rks eS]
bldk dkj.k ugha crk ldrhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus iqfyl
okyks dks viuh dksbZ ekdZ'khV tIr ugh djk;k FkkA "
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
statement of the victim, conduct of the appellants, gravity of
the offence, at this juncture, I am not inclined to suspend the
sentence awarded to the appellants.
Accordingly, application for interim suspension of
sentence is rejected.
List this appeal for final hearing on 3rd April, 2025
before the Bench having roster.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
