Chattisgarh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Sahu @ Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1598 of 2021
Mahesh Kumar Sahu @ Sonu Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
28/06/2022Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/11/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 26/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 5(1) of the Protection Imprisonment of life (till the death of
of Children from Sexual Offences applicant) and fine amount of
Act, 2012 Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of
fine further six month R.I.
Under Section 6 of the Protection of Imprisonment of life (till the death of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, applicant) and fine amount of
2012 Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of
fine further six month R.I.
Under Section 376 (3) of Indian Imprisonment of life (till the death of
Penal Code applicant) and fine amount of
Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of
fine further six month R.I.
Under Section 363 of Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years
Code and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- in
default of payment of fine further
two months rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 366-A of Indian Penal Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years
Code and fine amount of Rs.4,000/- in
default of payment of fine further
four months rigorous imprisonment.
All the sentences are run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to connect the appellant involved in the said crime in question, he is in jail since 14/01/2019, therefore, suspension of sentence and grant of bail may be allowed.
On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application. He submits that considering the statement of victim (PW-1), victim's father (PW-2), Dr. M. Divya (PW-7) and there is sufficient material available on record to connect the appellant-accused person with the offence and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the said offences and therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim as per Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-27 C) is 15 years and 4 months and also considering the statement of victim, medical evidence and other evidences available on record, we do not find it is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021 is rejected.
In this case, the identity of the victim PW-1 has been disclosed in the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC by the learned Special Judge as well as also in supplementary statement of the victim.
In the matter of Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the object, applicability and scope of Section 228-A of the IPC and further considering the exceptions to the said prohibition, held that Section 228-A of IPC prohibits not only the publication of the name of the victim but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of the victim. It was pertinently held as under:
"11. Neither IPC nor CrPC define the phrase"identity of any person".
Section 228-A IPC clearly prohibits the printing or publishing "the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the person". It is obvious that not only the publication of the name of the victim is prohibited but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of such victim. We are clearly of the view that the phrase "matter which may make known the identity of the person" does not solely mean that only the name of the victim should not be disclosed but it also means that the identity of the victim should not be discernible from any matter published in the media. The intention of the law-makers was that the victim of such offences should not be identifiable so that they do not face any hostile discrimination or harassment in the future."
The decision of Nipun Saxena (supra) has been further followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of X vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 598, wherein in Para-22 it has been held as under:
"22. This Court in Nipun Saxena (supra) has occasion to consider Section 228-A wherein this Court in para 50.1 has issued the following directions: (SCC p. 723) "50.1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large."
In light of the aforementioned dicta, we hereby totally deprecate the practice of mentioning and disclosing the name of victim during the course of judicial proceedings, as has been done in the present case by the learned Special Judge.
Accordingly, let this matter be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice on administrative side for consideration and/or taking appropriate action against the concerned judicial officer, who despite clear guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nipun Saxena (supra) has disclosed the identity of the victim during the course of judicial proceedings.
SS Sd/-Dd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Kamde/s@if