Chattisgarh High Court
Rakesh Tirkey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
IA No. 1 of 2024
In Re:
Cr. A. No. 1611 of 2024
Rakesh Tirkey S/o Dashru Tirkey Aged About 19 Years R/o Village -
Lamloi, Police Station - Rajgangpur, District - Sundergarh (Odisha).
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station - Narayanpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
Order Sheet
06/05/2025 By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12/08/2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge,
(POCSO Act), Kunkuri, Distt -Jashpur, (CG), the appellant stands
convicted and sentence as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 363 of IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
and fine of Rs.1,000/-.
U/s 366 (A) of IPC RI for 05 years & fine of amount
Rs.1,000/-
U/s 376 (2)(N) of IPC RI for 20 years & fine of amount
and u/s 6 of the Rs.1,000/-.
POCSO Act.
In all the offence, default of payment
of fine, 6-6 months additional RI.
Heard, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State on the instant application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail (IA No.1/2024).
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has
been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence
as alleged against him. There are many contradictions and omissions
in the statements of prosecution witnesses. There is delay in lodging
of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. As
per case of prosecution, age of the prosecutrix was 16 years 01
month at the time of incident, but no authentic documentary proof was
filed in order to prove the same. Statement of prosecutrix (PW-1)
reveals that she was the consenting party, having love affair with the
appellant, accompanied with him at various places and also resided
with him about 07 days at Odisha. Though there is allegation that on
the pretext of marriage, appellant has committed forceful sexual
intercourse with prosecution, but the same does not corroborate form
the medical evidence, MLC report is negative. Appellant has no
criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 29.01.2022 and further the
appeal is likely to take time for final disposal, hence, he prays that the
appellant be enlarged on bail.
Learned State Counsel submits that appellant is not
entitled for grant of bail as there is specific allegation against the
appellant of committing forceful sexual intercourse with minor victim
on the pretext of marriage, which is also proved from the medical
evidence, FSL is positive. Prosecutrix throughout the investigation and
during trial has also supported the prosecution case. Prosecution has
also proved the fact that at the time of alleged incident victim was
below 18 years of age by producing relevant documents regarding
Date of Birth of victim. Findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is
just and proper.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents appended with the bail application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of counsel for the respective parties, statements of
prosecution witnesses and other evidence/material available on
record, particularly the evidence of victim, the fact that there is delay
in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the
prosecution, further considering the submission that prosecutrix (PW-
1) was the consenting party, having love affair with the appellant,
accompanied with him at various places and also resided with him
about 07 days at Odisha, detention period of appellant i.e since
29.01.2022 as also his age i.e, only 19 years 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-
Rakesh Tirkey 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 08.07.2025. 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. However, it is
made clear that the observations made hereinabove 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.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
J/-
