JEETU KHATIK versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 11-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 128
128
JEETU KHATIK
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2022)
April 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Suspension of execution of sentence
– Trial Court had convicted and sentenced appellant u/ss.363 and
354 IPC and s.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012 – Prayer of appellant for suspension of
execution of sentence declined by High Court –Appellant pleaded
before Supreme Court that the High Court had taken too strict and
stern view of the matter and failed to appreciate that the maximum
sentence of imprisonment awarded in the matter was of three years
– Held: The High Court, while referring to the basis of conviction
of the appellant, did not make any comment as regards the fact that
the maximum sentence of imprisonment is of three years and that
the hearing of appeal is likely to take time – On the contrary, in the
concluding part of the order impugned, the High Court ordered
that the appeal be listed for hearing ‘in due course’ – If the appeal
remains pending in due course and the appellant by that time serves
out the sentence of imprisonment, and then, if there be any possibility
of his acquittal or any modification of the conviction/sentence, the
injury suffered by him would be practically irreparable – These
aspects, in the given set of facts and circumstances of the present
case, are themselves compelling reasons for suspension of execution
of sentence during the pendency of appeal – There does not appear
any other adverse reason to deny the relief to the appellant, like
any criminal antecedents before the incident in question or any
blame in the jail conduct – In the overall circumstances, execution
of the remaining part of the sentence awarded to the appellant is
ordered to be suspended during the pendency of appeal in the High
Court; and he is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court – Bail – IPC –
ss.363 and 354 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, 2012 – s.8.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2020) 8 SCC
645 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 8 SCC 645
referred to
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.603 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2021 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in I.A. No.01 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal
No.1219 of 2021.
Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Sameer Shrivastava, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Asmtia Singh, Gautam Narayan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Leave granted.
The challenge herein is to the order dated 09.11.2021, whereby
the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has declined the prayer for
suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of Criminal
Appeal No. 1219 of 2021.
The appeal aforesaid has been filed by the petitioner-appellant
against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh
in Special Criminal Case No. 15 of 2019.
The substance of the accusation against the appellant had been
that he kidnapped the 9-year-old victim from the custody of her legal
guardian and with intention to outrage her modesty, used criminal force
and with sexual intention, held her hand so as to forcefully take her to a
place away from road. It had been the prosecution’s case that the victim
got released her hand and ran while shouting. The Trial Court found the
appellant guilty and after recording conviction awarded sentences as
follows: -
JEETU KHATIK v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
The submissions on behalf of the appellant before the Appellate
Court seeking suspension of execution of sentence had been that the
Trial Court had overlooked major contradictions and omissions in the
statements of witnesses; and that he was on bail during the trial but did
not misuse his liberty and even after pronouncement of judgment, he
was granted bail for a limited period. It was also submitted that the
disposal of the appeal was likely to take some time and, therefore, the
appellant may be released on bail.
The High Court has proceeded to reject the prayer for suspension
of execution of sentence with reference to the deposition of the
prosecutrix, who was nine years of age, with its corroboration from th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.