Chattisgarh High Court
Bhojram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2021
1. Bhojram Sahu S/o Bisahu Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dhaneli, P.
S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Neera Sahu W/o Khubchand Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dhaneli,
P. S. Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Dharsiwa, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
17/12/2021 Mr. Sudhir Verma with Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Addl.A.G. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to appellant No.02 and I.A. No.02/2021, an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.01.
Appellants have been convicted by the impugned judgment dated
22.06.2021 passed by the learned First Upper Sessions Judge, Raipur,
District- Raipur, C.G., in Sessions Trial No.57/2018, with direction that all
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/- and in
default of fine amount additional
R.I. for 03 months.
U/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for 07
Code. years & payment of fine amount of
Rs.1000/- and in default of fine
amount, additional R.I. for 03
months.
U/s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for 05
Code. years & payment of fine amount of
Rs.1000/- and in default of fine
amount, R.I. for 03 months.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the conviction
against the appellants is erroneous and without the support of prosecution
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The case against the appellants is
solely based upon the circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstantial evidence has not been completely proved. The husband of
the appellant No.2 went missing regarding which, she had lodged a missing
report on 28.09.2017 and she has also given a complaint to Superintendent
of Police on 05.10.2017. The unidentified body was found on 27.10.2017.
On that basis, the case has been built up against the appellants. The body
of the deceased was already found before the memorandum statement of
appellant No.1 was recorded on 27.10.2017 at about 09:40 AM. It is
reflected from the morgue intimation (Ex.P/47) which was recorded on
08:00 AM on 27.10.2017. It is submitted that the body found was not
identified by any person. No D.N.A. test has been conducted for the
identification of the dead body. Therefore, the prosecution of the appellants
and their conviction both are mis-conceived. The appellants are in jail since
27.10.2017, hence, it is prayed that these appellants may be granted bail.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of C.G. reported in 2016 (2) C.G.SC 960
(SC), State of U.P. Vs. Sunil reported in 2017 (3) CCSC 1269 (SC), Rishi
Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013 (3) CC SC 1160 (SC).
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of C.G. High Court in
the case of Sukhai Gound Vs. State of C.G. reported in 2018 (1) C.G.L.J.
313 (D.B.), Laxman Vs. State of C.G. reported in 2018 (1) C.G.L.J. 40
(D.B.).
It is submitted that the question of identification of the dead body has
been dealt with in these cases. It is prayed that the appellants be granted
bail during the pendency of bail against them.
Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial
Court has dealt with the grounds which have been raised by the appellants
in the present bail application and drawn conclusions which are sustainable.
The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, as there is evidence of
last seen, the motive and other circumstances present including the
conduct of the appellants. Subsequent to the missing of the husband of
appellant No.2, there are witnesses who have identified the body
recovered, whose statements have remained unrebutted, therefore, there is
no case present for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Considered on the submissions and perused the evidence present in
the record of the trial Court in the case laws cited by the appellants side, the
judgment had been delivered at the final stage of deciding the appeal,
whereas this stage is only for considering the entitlement of the appellants
for grant of bail.
After perusal of the evidence present in the record of the trial Court,
we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case in which, the appellants
should be benefited with suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Therefore, the application is rejected.
Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021 and 02/2021, both the applications for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail are rejected.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Monika
