Chattisgarh High Court
Amar Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 December, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 262 of 2018
• Amar Singh Rajput S/o Bhaiyalal Rajput, aged about 30 years, R/o Khas, Niwas
village & P.S. - Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.). Present address - Rumgadha,
Balconagar, District Korba (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
---- Respondent
08/12/2021 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, P.L. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2020, which is second
application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.
First bail application of the appellant was
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order
dated 26.10.2018.
By the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2017
passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District
Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.99/2015, appellant
stands convicted under Sections 120-B, 302/34,
201/34 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life
with fine of Rs.500/-, imprisonment for life with fine
of Rs.500/-, R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.300/-
and R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.200/-
respectively, plus default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the entire case of the prosecution is
based on circumstantial evidence but the witnesses
to the circumstantial evidence namely Rajesh
Kumar Kushwaha (PW/10) and Ram Awtar Sahu
(PW/13) have not supported the case of the
prosecution and it is only on the basis of recovery
of scooter and golden ring, the appellant has been
inculpated. He would further submit that the
recovery of the dead body of deceased Laxman
Dharmani was not at the instance of this appellant
and thereafter the recovery of body of deceased is
said to have been made at the instance of the
appellant. He would also submit that only because
of the fact that incriminating articles alleged to
have been recovered, which though have not been
supported by PW/10 and PW/13, the memorandum
and seizure witnesses, the appellant cannot be
inculpated. He would further submit that according
to the prosecution, the deceased went to the house
of the appellant where he tried to outrage the
modesty of his (appellant's) wife, therefore, the
factum of self defence would come into play and it
cannot be said to be a murder.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposing
the bail application would submit that after the
conversation being made, the deceased was called
to the house of appellant, thereafter he was
murdered and his scooter and golden ring were
recovered at the instance of the appellant,
therefore, the question of self defence would not
come to the rescue of the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record including
the statements of Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha (PW/10)
and Ram Awtar Sahu (PW/13), who are the
witnesses to memorandum and seizure.
According to the prosecution, deceased
Laxman Dharmani who was alleged to be in relation
with one of the co-accused, the wife of present
appellant, went to the appellant's house and
thereafter the incident happened. The scooter by
which the deceased went to the appellant's house,
was recovered from a canal, which has been proved
by Rajesh Kumar Kushwaha (PW/10) and fact of
taking the scooter by the deceased has been
proved by Ravi Lalwani (PW/1). The subsequent
recovery of the money of deceased and golden ring
have also been made and the golden ring
recovered from bush has been identified to be that
of the deceased by Deepak Kumar Dharmani
(PW/06), son of the deceased.
Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to
release the appellant on bail.
I.A.No.01/2020 is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
pekde
