Chattisgarh High Court
Gheenuram Lekami Raut @ Gheenuram ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 554 of 2020
• Gheenuram Lekami Raut @ Gheenuram Yadav S/o Late Mitthu Aged About 65
Years R/o Pujari Para Karli, Police Station Geedam , District South Bastar
Dantewada Chhattisgarh.
• Devendra Yadav S/o Gheenuram Lekami Raut @ Gheenuram Yadav Aged
About 27 Years R/o Pujari Para Karli, Police Station Geedam , District South
Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, South Bastar Dantewada,
District Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
06-08-2021 Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harshal Chouhan,
Advocate for the appellant/s.
Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. GA for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01 - application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail filed by appellants/ Gheenuram Likami Raut @ Gheenuram
Yadav and Devendra Yadav.
The appellants have been convicted under the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Special Judge (Naxal) Dantewada, District South Bastar
Dantewada, CG in S.T. No. 235/2017.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw
application of Gheenuram Likami Raut @ Gheenuram Yadav. Accordingly,
the application on behalf of Gheenuram is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to revive at an appropriate stage.
As far as appellant Devendra Yadav is concerned, learned counsel
for the appellants would argue that at the first instance when Dehati Nalasi
and FIR was lodged, no specific role was attributed to Devendra and even
prosecution witnesses have not made coherent statement with regard to
role of appellant Devendra and Kunwar Singh Yadav (PW-3), Smt. Sulo Bai
(PW-4), Arun Yadav (PW-5) and Sukhlal Yadav (PW-10) have stated in the
Court wherein, the allegations are mainly against Gheenuram Likami Raut
@ Gheenuram Yadav. The injury found on Sukhlal (PW-10) - injured
witness is not serious in nature and there is no injury on the head of
Sukhlal (PW-10) or Smt. Sulo Bai (PW-4). Therefore, at the most the
appellant Devendra Yadav in the circumstances of the case of sudden fight
in the field, could be held liable for commission of offence under Section
323 IPC and not more then that. He has already undergone more than four
years jail sentence by now, therefore, he may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose by
submitting that though some of the witnesses have not made specific
statement against Devendra, injured witness (PW-10) has stated regarding
assault made by appellant Devendra also on him as well as on the
deceased.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, and
the evidence regarding role alleged to be played by the present appellant
Devendra Yadav, single injury found on the head of the deceased and that
Sukhlal (PW-10) has not sustained any grievous injury much less an injury
on his head, we are inclined to allow suspension application of Devendra
Yadav.
Accordingly, the suspension application of Devendra Yadav is
allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
appellant Devendra Yadav shall remain suspended during the pendency of
the appeal and he shall be released on bail furnishing a personal bond of
Rs. 25,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the concerned trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned trial
Court on 27th September, 2021 and all such further dates as may be
directed by the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, till final
disposal of this appeal.
Post the appeal for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Pawan Prajapati
