Chattisgarh High Court
Samay Lal Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 December, 2021
3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2021
Samay Lal Dewangan, S/o. Lt. Shri Ram Kishun Dewangan, aged about 48
years, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Murra Bhatti, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Respondent
17/12/2021 Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2021, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 10.3.2021 passed by the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2018, the appellant stands
convicted with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently, as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376(2)(n) of R.I. for 20 years and to pay fine of
the Indian Penal Code. Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo RI for 1
year.
Under Section 376(2)(n) of R.I. for 20 years and to pay fine of
the Indian Penal Code. Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo RI for 1
year.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has been erroneously convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in
the impugned judgment without there being any reliable evidence of
the prosecution against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The victims in this case, PW-1 & PW-2 are not reliable witnesses,
who have made several admissions in their cross-examinations
according to which, the story of the prosecution is full of doubts and
improbable. The appellant was giving services as a godman for
treatment of the persons ailment through sorcery for which the
victims have been continuously visiting him. As the victims could
not get any benefit from their treatment, they have made false
allegations and the complaint is delayed by about 6 months. The
appellant has a good case on merits and he was on bail during the
course of trial. Hence, it is prayed that the application be allowed.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail application. It is
submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The evidence of the victims (PW-1 & PW-2) is
totally reliable and unshaken, therefore, no error has been
committed by the Court below in convicting the appellant. Hence,
the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.
Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned
judgment of the Court below.
Considered on the submissions and perused the evidence
present on record of the trial Court. We are of the considered view
that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant. Consequently, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2021, an application for suspension
of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
It is directed that the jail sentence imposed upon the
appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this
appeal and he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 21.2.2022 and thereafter before the
concerned trial Court on a date to be fixed by the Registry and on
all such subsequent dates as would be given by that Court till final
disposal of this appeal.
List this appeal for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Nimmi
