Chattisgarh High Court
Jeetendra @ Jeetu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
I.A. No.1 of 2022
In Re :
CRA No. 1941 of 2022
• Jeetendra @ Jeetu, S/o Hariram Devdas, age 38 years, R/o village Tilai,
P.S. Chikhli, Thana Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
---- Appellant
(In jail)
Versus
• State Of Chhattsgarh Through- S.H.O., Chikhli Chowki, Thana Kotwali,
District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 04/08/2023 By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 29/2021 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 450 of I.P.C. R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default of payment
of fine amount, additional R.I. for
01 month.
Under Section 376 (2) (L) of R.I. for life till natural death and I.P.C. fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for one month.
Under Section 506 Part-II of R.I. for 01 year and fine of I.P.C. Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 01 month.
Heard Mr. Anurag Verma, learned counsel for appellant. Also heard Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent on the I.A.No.01/2022, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no clinching and credible evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. Learned counsel further argued that PW/15-Safeel Khan, eye-witness to the incident, has not stated anything specific against the appellant and that apart medical report (Ex.P/5) also does not support the case of the prosecution, according to which the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact. Learned counsel also submits that as the appellant is in jail since 08.01.2021, there is no likelihood of his appeal being decided in near future, therefore, the appellant may be extended privilege of bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail application submits that the Prosecutrix (PW/6) is mentally retarded person and according to medical report (Ex.P/5), prosecutrix suffered injury (abrasion of 1 cm x 0.5 cm) over posterior aspect of vaginal, which is suggestive of nature that she was subjected to rape. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trail Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, has rightly convicted the appellant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, quality of evidence and further considering the fact that the Prosecutrix (PW/6) appears to be mentally retarded person who was subjected to rape by the appellant, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2022, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail are rejected.
It transpires from the record that the matter is ripe for final hearing.
List these appeal for final hearing after six weeks.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
pkd