Ganesh Banaj vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 65 Chatt

                                         1

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   Order Sheet
                              CRA No.361 of 2016

 Santosh Kumar Kesharwani S/o Pardesi Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 44
  Years R/o Baniyapara, Sarangarh, Police Station And Post Sarangarh, Tahsil
  Sarangarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar -
  Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Respondent

CRA No.391 of 2016

 Satyendra Jangde S/o Sahashram Jangde Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dahida, Police Station Koshir, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station - Bilaigarh, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

CRA No.566 of 2016

 Dilchand Banaj S/o Shankar Lal Satnami Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Dahida, Police Station - Kosir, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bilaigarh, District - Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

CRA No. 576 of 2016

1. Ganesh Banaj S/o Raja Ram Satnami Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Dahida Police Station Kosir, District - Raigarh Chhattisarh , Chhattisgarh

2. Sunil Bharti S/o Het Ram Satnami Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dahida,

Police Station Kosir, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

CRA No.604 of 2016

 Gopi Banaj S/o Buchau Satnami Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dahida, P.S. Kosir, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

CRA No.659 of 2016

 Hemant Bhardwaj S/o Chaitaram Satnami Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dahida, P.S. Kosir, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Bhilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

08/04/2021 Shri T. K. Jha with Shri N. P. Thakur, Shri R. S. Patel, Shri Ashok Verma, Dr. Rajesh Pandey and Shri R. Pradhan, counsel for appellant/s- Satyendra Jangde, Dilchand Banaj, Ganesh Banaj, Sunil Bharti, Gopi Banaj and Hemant Bhardwaj.

Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Dy.AG for State.

Heard on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the aforestated appellants, who have been convicted by

the trial Court vide common judgment dated 10-03-2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.01/2015 for alleged commission of offence under Section 412, 120-B read with Section 396 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the prosecution case of murder and robbery is based only on recovery of allegedly looted articles, identification of such articles and presence of human blood on the clothes of four appellants namely Sunil Bharti, Satyendra Jangde, Hemant Bhardwaj and Ganesh Banaj, but none of these circumstantial evidence led before the Court by the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt, because the witnesses of memorandum, seizure and identification have given contradictory statement in examination-in-chief and the cross-examination and in respect of some of the appellants, even they turned hostile. It is next submitted that the manner, in which, the prosecution led the evidence of memorandum and seizure witnesses only show that the witnesses were asked to come in the police station and without drawing any proceedings of recording of memorandum in the presence of these witnesses, signatures of the so-called memorandum and seizure witnesses were obtained on documents of memorandum and seizure and false recoveries have been shown.

As far as evidence of identification of looted articles are concerned, it is argued that the identification panchnama was prepared by the Executive Magistrate in presence of two independent witnesses, but none of them have been examined and the prosecution has come out with a case that the identification of looted articles/ornaments was done by some of the villagers and relatives of the deceased being Amrit Lal, PW- 3, Narayani Sahu, PW-8 and Uma Sahu, PW-9, whose evidence does not inspire confidence, because they have stated that at the time of identification of articles, the police was also present at the spot.

As far as presence of bloodstains on the clothes of appellants namely Sunil Bharti, Satyendra Jangde, Hemant Bhardwaj and Ganesh Banaj is concerned, it is argued that human blood is allegedly found on the clothes, but the forensic report does not prove the group and origin of

the blood much less it being blood of the group and origin of any of the four murdered and looted victims. Therefore, it is argued that the entire case of the prosecution is extremely doubtful and no conviction could be ordered on such evidence. It is lastly submitted that the presumption of robbery and murder in the same transaction cannot be drawn against those accused, merely because certain looted articles are said to be recovered, unless there is clinching evidence of appellants not only having committed robbery, but also murder of four victims.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits would argue that though, there are discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, seizure and memorandum, but all of them have admitted their signatures on the documents of seizure and memorandum as also their presence at the spot, when the memorandum was taken and seizure was made as also the place, from where seizure has been made and the evidence of the Investigating Officer clearly proves beyond doubt that he had proved the memorandum of the accused with regard to the incident and at their instance, incriminating articles which included jewellery, cash and personal belonging of the deceased has been seized. He would also submit that though, the Executive Magistrate and independent witnesses have not been examined, the evidence of Amrit Lal, PW-3, Narayani Sahu, PW-8 and Uma Sahu, PW-9 with regard to identification of the looted articles is reliable and could not be discarded only because other witnesses were not examined. There is no reason as to why these accused would be falsely implicated and false evidence led before the Court. It is lastly submitted that clothes of appellants namely Sunil Bharti, Satyendra Jangde, Hemant Bhardwaj and Ganesh Banaj were seized, which have been found stained with human blood and all of them have failed to explain as to how their clothes were stained with human blood.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence of seizure and identification of looted articles and presence of human blood on the clothes of four appellants namely Sunil Bharti, Satyendra Jangde, Hemant Bhardwaj and Ganesh Banaj, we do not find the present to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

Accordingly, all the applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rejected.

List all the appeals for hearing.

                          SD/-                                  SD/-
                (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)          (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
                         Judge                                 Judge




Tumane