Allowed

Shivprasad Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2022MCRC/5092/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications arose from an FIR alleging sexual intercourse with a minor by the visitors. The court, finding the prosecutrix was a minor and lacking recent medical evidence of injury, allowed the bail after noting the consent argument was irrelevant.

What did the court decide?

Both bail applications allowed on personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety and conditions.

Shivprasad Dewangan Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 5092 of 2022

¶5

Shivprasad Dewangan, S/o Sapuran, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station, Jainagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicant

¶8

MCRC No. 5529 of 2022

¶9

Saurabh Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shivcharan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Baraul, Police Station Bishrampur, DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police of Police Station - Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Non-Applicant

¶13

For Applicant in MCRC No. 5092 of 2022 For Applicant in MCRC No. 5529 of 2022	: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State	: Shri Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

03.08.2022

Heard.

1. These two bail applications i.e. MCRC No. 5529 of 2022 & MCRC No. 5092 of 2022 are being disposed of by this common order as both these applications are arising out of same Crime Number i.e. 129/2022 registered at Police Station Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Section 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Protection of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶19

1. As per prosecution story, the daughter of the complainant was

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

missing from 14.05.2022 and she returned back to home on 18.05.2022 then father inquired about her absence from home for long four days. She narrated that she was taken on a motorcycle by Saurabh Kumar Dewangan (applicant in MCRC No. 5529 of 2022) on 14.05.2022 to Gilharipara where Shivprasad Dewanga (applicant in MCRC No. 5092 of 2022) met her and thereafter Saurabh Kumar Dewangan left the company of these two. She was taken to village Kudargarh by the applicant Shivprasad Dewangan where they stayed for 3 days & Shivprasad committed sexual intercourse on her person. On 18.05.2022 Shivprasad Dewangan brought the prosecutrix to her home and thereafter her father took her to Police Station where FIR was lodged on 19.05.2022 for the offences mentioned above.

¶22

1. Counsel for the applicants Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Anil Gulati submit that there was affair between the applicant Shivprasad Dewangan and the prosecutrix for the last three years and this fact has been admitted by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC as well as statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. They further submit that the prosecutrix was compelled to register FIR against the accused persons. The next contention of the counsel for the applicants is that in this case charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in jail since 20.05.2022, despite the prosecutrix was recommended for ossification test no ossification test was conducted by the prosecution, which makes the age of the prosecutrix doubtful and medical report does not support occular evidence as no injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix. Saurabh Kumar Dewangan remained in company of Shivprasad Dewangan & prosecutrix for short period and he left them. Therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

¶23

1. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that the age of the prosecutrix on the date of incident was 17 years 3 months and 1 day and she was minor below 18 years and her consent would be irrelevant and the applicants can not take shelter of her consent. He further submits that it is heinous crime and the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community, therefore,

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶26

1. I have heard counsel for the parties at length.

¶27

1. The contention of Shri Khetrapal regarding consent of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted as on the date of incident she was minor, therefore, her consent becomes irrelevant but considering the fact that there was no allegation regarding caste and offence was not committed with the intention that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is not made out. The prosecution has not filed any relevant document to prove the age of the prosecutrix, charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in jail since 20.05.2022, in the medical report no injury was found on any part of the prosecutrix. Without making any observation on the merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarged both the applicants on bail. Accordingly, both the bail applications are allowed.

¶28

1. It is directed that in the event of each of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶29

(i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;

¶30

(ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

¶31

(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial; and

¶32

(iv) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey ) Judge

¶35

Nadim

Shivprasad Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivprasad Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Kishor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shabbir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kunal Tekam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Kavita Nagvanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rekhram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tulsi Jagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh