Chamman Lal Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1041 Chatt

                                                                               NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              CRA No.1983 of 2019

 •   Chamman Lal Dhruw S/o Late Shri Supet Singh Dhruw Aged About 33 Years R/o
     Village Jhal Khamhariya, Police Station Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund,
     Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House, Mahasamund, District :
    Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Respondent

12.07.2021 Shri Ashok Kumar Varma, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Shubham Verma, PL for the State/Respondent.

Heard on prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to

the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2019 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Court, Mahasamund, District -

Mahasamund, (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.20/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conviction

of the appellant is founded only on suspicious circumstantial evidence

failing to form complete chain to draw inference regarding guilt of the

appellant so as to warrant his conviction. He would submit that the

evidence on record led by the prosecution itself shows that the

deceased was a quarrel some and criminal person and he had lot of enmity in the village and his dead body was found in a bag near a pond

which is outside the house of the appellant. Only on this much of

evidence, conviction could not be ordered as the suspicion has not

been able to translate into truth.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the evidence led by the prosecution on which conviction is founded

are, that the deceased used to reside with the appellant as he was

younger brother, there used to be quarrel between the brothers, in the

house of the appellant, number of blood stains were found and the coat

of the appellant was also found stained with blood which the appellant

failed to explain and there was suspicious conduct of the appellant and

his wife in shifting from their own house to the house of their neighbor in

the midnight.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and particularly taking into consideration the circumstantial evidence

which has been made basis for conviction, we do not consider present

to be a fit case for grant of bail, accordingly the application is, therefore,

rejected.

List this case for final hearing.

                         Sd/-                                        Sd/-
         (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                       (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                     Judge                                           Judge




Yasmin