AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
This is repeat bail application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions, Judge Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2014 for the offences as follows :
Conviction
Sentences
Under Section 363 of IPC
R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of which, additional R.I., for 1 month.
Under Section 366-A of IPC
R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which, additional R.I., for 3 months.
Under Section 376 of IPC
R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which, additional R.I., for 3 months.
Under Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which, additional R.I., for 3 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the prosecutrix is less than 18 years. He would further submit that the school records before the Court are not clinching evidence for the exact date of birth of the prosecutrix. These entries are made only on the basis of speculation. It is next submitted that the prosecutrix mother has not stated the exact date of birth. However, her statement with regard to the age is not reliable. It is submitted that the prosecution was required to prove the age of the prosecutrix by subjecting her to ossification test which was not done and more than four years of sentence is completed, therefore, at this stage, he may be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the age of the prosecutrix being less than 16 years on the date of incident has been proved from the school records. The evidence of prosecutrix herself as also the evidence of her mother have remained uncontroverted on the aspect of the age.
Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and particularly taking into consideration the evidence with regard to the age, no case is made out for grant of bail to the appellant. The application is rejected.