Chattisgarh High Court
Siyaram Sirdar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 July, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 180 of 2020
Siyaram Sirdar S/o. Madhau Ram, aged about 31 years, R/o. Village Gokulpur,
P.S. Ramanujnagar, Presently residing village Koteya, P.S. Premnagar, District
Surajpur (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Premnagar,
District Surajpur (CG)
---- Respondent
23/07/2021 Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla and Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla,
Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. GA for the State/respondent.
Heard on application (IA No. 02/2020) for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 449 and
302 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine
of Rs. 500/- under Section 449 IPC, life imprisonment with fine of
Rs. 500/- under Section 302 IPC with default stipulations, vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2019
passed in ST No. 66 of 2018 by learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG).
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
evidence of eyewitness Dhirsai (PW-1) is doubtful because there is
evidence on record to show that the appellant and Dhirsai (PW-1)
had some enmity and further that there was some dispute between
Dhirsai (PW-1) and deceased both. It is also argued that number of
injuries are stated to have been inflected on the deceased, in the
evidence of PW-1, are not reflected from the postmortem report as
proved by the doctor which shows that Dhirsai (PW-1) is not an
eyewitness. It is also argued that the FSL report has not been
formally proved by examining the author of the documents,
therefore, the same could not be admitted in evidence. It is also
argued that the independent witnesses of memorandum and
seizure have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the
evidence of IO with regard to memorandum and seizure become
doubtful and consequently the FSL report also doubtful, particularly
when there is no specific evidence of the seized articles sent to
FSL in sealed condition and no evidence of the FSL authority
regarding opening of the seal before examination. It is also argued
that the FSL report does not prove presence of the blood of the
same origin and group in the sari of the deceased as in the clothes
of the appellant, therefore, the prosecution case remains doubtful.
Learned counsel for the appellant would also argue that the sole
defence witness examined by the defence render possible that the
appellant was not at the spot when the incident happened rather he
was engaged in grazing cattle at another place along with DW-1.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the
application by submitting that present is case of eyewitness
account given by Dhirsai (PW-1) and merg intimation as well as
FIR was promptly lodged by him within three hours of the incident
naming the appellant as assailant. He would also argue that the
evidence of Dhirsai (PW-1) is corroborated from presence of blood
of the same group and origin which was found in the blood stained
soil at the spot of the incident and the clothes of the appellant as
also the axe.
Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the
parties particularly taking into consideration the eyewitness
account of PW-1 and also taking into consideration other evidence
including FSL report group and origin of the blood found on the
cloth of the appellant, axe and on the spot, present is not a fit case
for grant of bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail is rejected.
List this case for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Santosh
