Satauram Mandavi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 August, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Satauram Mandavi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 August, 2022

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                              1
                                                                            CRA No. 34 of 2022



                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      Order Sheet

                                   CRA No. 34 of 2022

  Satauram Mandavi S/o Aayturam Mandavi, aged about 40 years, R/o Village
     Aamgaon Patelpara, P.S. Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon, C.G.

                                          Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station - Vishrampuri
     District - Kondagaon, C.G.

     Division Bench:-

     Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
     Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput




23.08.2022          Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A. for the State / respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.1, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. in POCSO Case No.25/2019 appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rest of the life span, & pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year. The appellant has challenged the same in this appeal.

CRA No. 34 of 2022 Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He is in custody since 28.06.2019, therefore, application may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that on the basis of statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-2); Dr. Reeta Gedam (PW-6), and Medico legal Examination Report of Sexual Violence (Ex. P/9) the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and, as such, the bail application of the appellant deserves to be rejected.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also perused the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and statement of prosecutrix / victim (PW-2) and further considering the statement of Dr. Reeta Gedam (PW-6), who has examined the prosecutrix / victim and Medical Report (Ex.P/9) in which pain over the perineal region was found and further considering the other evidence available on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the present appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 is rejected.

                       Sd/-                                       Sd/-
               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                       (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Ankit                Judge                                       Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court