Suberam Majhvar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2065 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                         Order Sheet

                             Proceedings through Video Conferencing

                                 Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2020

   • Suberam Majhvar S/o Late Samaru Majhvar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Chalha,
     Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                ---- Appellant

                                            Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

                                                                             ---- Respondent

31.8.2021 Shri Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ravish Verma, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.

Heard on IA No.01/2020, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2020 passed in Session Trial No.29/2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG).

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conviction is founded on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He submits that only on the basis that the appellant had left parental house of the deceased/wife with her and thereafter he eloped and the wife was found dead, the entire case of the prosecution is founded on suspicion that the appellant must have killed his wife, though there is no legally admissible evidence to support the case as statement in the memorandum regarding the manner of killing his wife is not supported from medical evidence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the application submits that uncontroverted testimony of the prosecution witnesses of the appellant leaving the parental house of the deceased/wife along with wife and thereafter both of them not found until dead body of the wife was recovered and the appellant's conduct of not informing anybody with regard to what happened to his wife and how she sustained injuries, which was otherwise within his personal knowledge, evidence of the appellant's shirt being found stained with blood has been made basis for conviction.

Considering the statement and nature of circumstantial evidence, which has been made basis of the conviction, we do not consider present to be a fit case for suspension and grant of bail at this stage.

The application is according rejected.

                   Sd/-                                              Sd/-

          (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                        (NK Chandravanshi)

                     Judge                                           Judge


Bini