Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 195 (CHH)

TULSIRAM v. STATE OF C. G.

2005-05-13

D.R.DESHMUKH, FAKHRUDDIN

body2005
ORDER 1. Heard on M.(Cri.) P. No. 378/2004 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Tulsiram 2. It is submitted that the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs 25000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two years, under Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 25000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one year and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25000/-, in default of payment of fine. further R.I. for two years. 3. Shri Ahulwalia, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been implicated in the instant crime because of the enmity inasmuch as the appellant himself was beaten and a report was lodged to this effect. He further referred to the deposition P.W.15 J.S. Porte and paragraph 8 of the deposition of P.W.1 Pappu Singh and FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is no evidence that the prosecutrix is mentally retarded. He also submitted that prosecutrix has not been examined and no. certificate has been filed Shri Ahulwalia submitted that even the document Ex. P/9 referred to psychiatric consultant for expert opinion and that opinion has also not been placed on record. He also submitted that no finding was given that the prosecutrix is insane or lunatic. It is also submitted that there is no evidence that intercourse was committed. 4. Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record the application is allowed. It is also submitted that there is no evidence that intercourse was committed. 4. Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Suresh Vs. State of Maharashtra. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record the application is allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26-9-2005 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the office. The bond shall contain photograph, crime number and the details of the immovable and moveable properties of the appellant. Before accepting the bond, copy of the same shall be handed over to the prosecution. 6. The appellant shall also appear before the police station concerned on first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. Accordingly, M.(Cri). P. No. 378/2004 stands disposed of. Bail Granted.