Goverdhan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2073 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                         Order Sheet

                             Proceedings through Video Conferencing

                                 Criminal Appeal No.590 of 2020

   • Goverdhan Sahu S/o Shri Santuram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chilphi P/S
     Saja District Bemetra C.G. Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

                                                                               ---- Appellant

                                            Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saja District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

                                                                            ---- Respondent

31.8.2021 Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Jitendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

Heard on IA No.02/2020, 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.100/- with default stipulations vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.3.2020 passed in Session Trial No.50/2019 by learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (CG).

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that homicidal death of the wife in the house of the appellant without there being any direct evidence on any strong motive could not be made a basis for conviction of the appellant. He would further argue that in any case, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the appellant gave assault, it was because of the appellant suspecting the deceased playing witchcraft on him. Therefore, it would be at the most commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not Section 302 IPC.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the application submits that evidence that the appellant's wife found dead in the matrimonial house, the appellant failed to explain, the doctor proved the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature and also considering the strong evidence of extra judicial confession of the appellant being voluntarily given to his father and son, have been made basis for conviction of the appellant.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and also taking into consideration the nature of evidence and the material available on the basis of which conviction has been ordered, we do not consider present to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail at this stage.

The application is according rejected.

                        Sd/-                                        Sd/-

          (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                       (NK Chandravanshi)

                        Judge                                         Judge




Bini