Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2024
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 661 of 2024
Yogesh Verma S/o Bhuneshwar Singh Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o
Munibaba Gali, Jabdapara, P.S.- Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Police
Station- Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
CRA No. 699 of 2024 Rahul Dewangan S/o Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Sendri Bazar Chowk, Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). At Present Resident of Muni Bada Jabdapara, Sarkanda, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).
----Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station, Sarkanda, District- Bialspur (C.G.).
---- Respondent CRA No. 808 of 2024 Deepak Singh S/o Shri Ugrasen Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Muni Baba Jabdapara Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
----Appellant 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent Order Sheet 29/11/2024 By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ First FTSC, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Special Sessions Trial (POCSO Act) No. 31/2020, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Rigorous Fine Default
under Imprisonment sentence of
Section imprisonment
Appellant-Deepak Singh and Rahul Dewangan 363 IPC 5 years Rs. 100 days 1000/-
366 IPC 7 years Rs. 300 days 3000/-
3-4/17 of the Life Rs. 500 days
POCSO Act, imprisonment 5000/-
2012
Appellant-Yogesh Verma
363/109 IPC 5 years Rs. 100 days
1000/-
366/109 IPC 7 years Rs. 300 days
3
3000/-
4(2) of the Life Rs. 500 days
POCSO Act, imprisonment 5000/-
2012
Heard Mr. Devershi Thakur {in Cr.A. No. 661/2024}, Mr. Goutam Khetrapal {in Cr.A. No. 699/2024}, Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan {in Cr.A. No. 808/2024}, learned counsel for the appellants-Yogesh Verma, Rahul Dewangan and Deepak Singh, respectively. Also heard Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Panel lawyer appearing for the State/respondent in IA No. 1 of 2024 {in all these three appeals}, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
Case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2020, the victim, who was a minor aged about 15 years and 7 months, was returning home with her sister from Devki Nandan School after watching her younger sister's dance program. At around 2.00 p.m., appellant-Deepak Singh, who lives in the victim's neighborhood, and two juvenile delinquents met the victim and her sister in front of 'Priya Namkeen' and told them that they would drop them to home. As they knew each other, they made the victim and the victim's sister sit in a car. Appellant Deepak Singh and two juvenile delinquents drove the car very fast towards Birkona and stopped at a deserted 4 place, where appellant Rahul Devangan and another boy and another man on a motorcycle made the victim get down from the car. When the victim asked for urination, appellant Yogesh Verma took the victim to the ruins, saying that he was taking her for urination. Victim's younger sister and appellant Deepak Singh and two juvenile delinquent boys in conflict with law were sitting in the car and Rahul Devangan and another boy were also there. After the victim answered the nature's call, appellant-Yogesh Verma started forcing himself upon the victim and on resisting, he assaulted the victim with a belt, threw the victim on the ground and forcibly made physical relations with the victim and committed rape upon her.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the respective appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the appellants and the victim are known to each other and are resident of the same locality.
Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant- Yogesh Verma submits that though the victim very well knew the appellant-Yogesh Verma, but he has not been named in the FIR. It is further submitted that PW-11, Puja Sahu, who is the friend of the victim has not supported the prosecution 5 case. The defence witnesses have also confirmed that there was an incident taken place in the house of the victim and the victim was having love affair with one Lov Singh Thakur and for this reason, she was beaten by her father and she could be saved only with the intervention of her neighbours. The said person Lov Singh Thakur has also not been examined in this case either by the prosecution or by the defence. The conviction is based merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the prosecution story appears to be quite improbable. It has further been argued by Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant-Rahul Dewangan, that the appellant was on bail during the trial and had never misused the liberty granted to him. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellant-Deepak Singh also submits that there is no allegation of rape against the appellant and he has falsely been roped in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants-Yogesh Verma and Deepak Singh are in jail since 28.01.2020 and the appellant-Rahul Dewangan is in jail since 19.03.2024. The conclusion of the appeals is likely to take some time. Hence, they pray for releasing the appellants on bail.
6
On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants. He submits that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper and the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail deserve to be rejected.
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 there is no clear and cogent evidence to show that accused/appellants-Rahul Dewangan and Deepak Singh had committed the crime in question and the conclusion of these appeals would take some time, we deem it appropriate to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of the appellants-Rahul Dewangan and Deepak Singh.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to appellant-Rahul Dewangan and Deepak Singh by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended. They shall be released on bail on their executing bail bond to the 7 satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 06.01.2025. They 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 them by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, till final disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 {in Cr.A. No. 699/2024 and 808/2024} is allowed.
So far as the case of the appellant-Yogesh Verma {in Cr.A. No. 661/2024} is concerned, the victim (PW-2) has clearly deposed against him and stated that she was assaulted, threatened and thereafter, the appellant committed forceful rape upon her. The sister of the victim (PW-3) has also, in categorical terms, deposed against the appellant. She is also a minor aged 14 years. She has stated that the accused persons had told them that they would drop them to their house in their car but they were taken to an isolated place. She tried to scream for help but since the window panes of the car were closed, the sound could not reach outside the car. The accused persons sitting in the car tried to lay their hands on her breast and she was crying but 8 did not allow her go out of the car. After 1 ½ hours, when Yogesh Verma came back with the victim, she saw that the jeans of the victim was torn near the thigh and blood was oozing from there. Later, the victim informed her that she was raped by Yogesh Verma.
The FSL (Exhibit P/52) report is also positive wherein semen stains and human sperms have been found in the slides prepared by the Doctor and in the undergarment of the victim. Further, perusal of the MLC (Exhibit P/7) on external examination, bruise was found on the upper half of the right breast, multiple bite marks was also noted, scratch marks were found on the left arm anterior aspect, lower half, left upper anterior 1/3rd of thigh and anterior aspect of thigh, scratch mark on left lateral chest wall was observed by the Doctor (PW12) Neha Singh. On examination of the private part of the victim, the hymen was found torn at 5-6 O'Clock position. As such, we deem it appropriate to reject the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, filed by the appellant-Yogesh Verma.
Accordingly, IA No. 1/2024 {Cr.A No. 661/2024} is rejected.
9
It is made clear that the observations made herein above are only confined for disposal of aforesaid I.As filed in these appeals and it shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the matter.
List these case for final hearing in the fourth week of January, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed by
AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2024.12.02
11:24:14 +0530