Umeshwar Dewangan @ Shiva vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3572 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            Order Sheet
                   Criminal Appeal No.800 of 2021
  1. Umeshwar Dewangan @ Shiva S/o Balkishan Dewangan Aged About 30
      Years R/o Prem Nagar, Satnami Para, Rawabhatha, Khamtarai, District-
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh
  2. Himanshu Chandradas S/o Bhikhari Charandas Manikpuri Aged About 25
      Years R/o New Anand Nagar Sendhwa Near Pond, Bhanpuri, Khamtarai,
      District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                            --- Appellants
                                Versus
     State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Station
      Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District-Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ---Respondent

08/12/2021 Mr. K.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl.A.G. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.59/2016, appellants stand convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned below, with direction that both the jail sentences shall run concurrently:-

                        Conviction                                 Sentence
             U/s. 302 read with Section 34 of         Life imprisonment & payment of
             Indian Penal Code.                       fine amount of Rs.1000/- each and
                                                      in default of fine amount additional
                                                      R.I. for 01-01 month each.
             U/s. 201 read with Section 34 of         Rigorous imprisonment for 05-05
             the Indian Penal Code.                   years & payment of fine amount of
                                                      Rs.500/- each and in default of
                                                      fine amount additional R.I. for 15
                                                      days each.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been wrongly convicted and there is no evidence in this case, therefore, the conviction is based upon only the circumstantial evidence. The extra judicial confession referring the statement of Vidhya Chaudhary (P.W.-23) and Sunil Chaudhary (P.W.-24), it is argued by the counsel for appellants that the extra judicial confession made by the appellants is not admissible because it was made in police station and before the police officials. With regard to the other circumstances, it has been argued that since no serologist report is available, and origin of blood is also not established, therefore, also conviction is not sustainable.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel would oppose the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants and submits that looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire records of the trial Court, statement of the prosecution and other evidence adduced by the prosecution minutely.

Considering the statement of P.W.-23 and P.W.-24 and other circumstantial evidence available on record, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the appellants, accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

                      Sd/-                                       Sd/-

          (Arvind Singh Chandel)                           (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

                      Judge                                      Judge
Monika