Gangaram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1085 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CRA No. 678 of 2016
  Gangaram S/o. Somra Ram, aged about 34 years, Caste Uraon, Occupation
  Cultivator, R/o. Village Bhudkela, (Karamtoli) Police Station Jashpur, District
  Jashpur (CG)
                                                                     ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
  State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jashpur,
  District Jashpur (CG)
                                                                 ---- Respondent

13/07/2021 Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ravish Verma, Govt. Advocate for the State.

Heard on application (IA No. 01/2016) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 15.03.2016.

As is unfurled from the story put forth by the prosecution, in the morning hours of 20.10.2015, the accused/appellant killed his mother namely Bhinso Bai, by inflicting number of injuries on her body including the vital part like head with the help of wooden plank. Though no eyewitness is there to the incident and most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, yet from the cross- examination of some of them being (PW-1) elder son of the deceased and (PW-2) daughter-in-law of the deceased, it is apparent that on that day, a cry raised by the deceased was heard by them, but on account of fear of the accused they did not go to the spot. Little later, when PW-1 reached there after answering call of nature, he saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the backyard of his house with bleeding injuries on her body. From the evidence of PW-7, it also appears that when he accompanied PW- 1 to his house, he heard the deceased (then alive) saying that she was attacked by the accused/appellant. From the evidence of PW- 7, it is also apparent that at that time accused/appellant was loitering there carrying a club in his hand. This fact was told by PW- 7 to PW-1 as well. Though from the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6, mental state of the accused/appellant appeared a bit unstable, yet no concrete evidence has been led by the defence that in what manner and since when the accused was suffering from such ailment. Further, it has also not come in the evidence of even a single witness as to what treatment was given to the accused/ appellant and by whom. No medical papers have been filed by the defence to establish the mental disturbance of the accused at that particular moment. It is pertinent to mention here that if the narration given by the accused in his statem-

ent recorded under Section 313 CrPC is seen where he has taken so many defences including that of alibi, it can very well be said that his mental condition was not that much bad to render him incapable to understand the consequence of his act. None of the witnesses has stated about the absence of the accused at the relevant time. Moreover, from the evidence of PW-7 it is clear that the accused/appellant was very much present on the spot and therefore, his defence of alibi gets falsified. Even if the defence of alibi is taken to be true for while, it was bounden duty of the defence to establish as to at how much distance the accused/appellant was at the relevant time and whether it was not at all practically possible for him to go and get back within a short interval, but the defence has utterly failed to prove that.

Furthermore, the evidence of the doctor (PW-12) who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased clearly goes to show that the cause of death was head injury and excessive bleeding. He has also explicitly opined that injuries present on the body of the deceased eventually resulting in her death could be caused with the help of wooden plank seized under Ex.P-9.

Thus, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence of the witnesses discussed above, prima- facie, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the accused/appellant.

I.A. No. 1/2016 is accordingly dismissed.

List the case for final hearing in due course.

                                Sd/-                                     Sd/-

                   (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                             Judge                                    Judge




Jyotishi/Santosh