Hetram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1377 Chatt

                                                                                NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              CRA No. 1795 of 2019

• Kanshiram Sahu S/o Neelkanth Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mopar, P.S.-
  Suhela, District- Baloda, Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara,
  Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Respondent

CRA No. 76 of 2020

• Hetram Sahu S/o Late Pahruram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mopar, Police Station Suhela, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

CRA No. 1808 of 2019

• Smt. Savitri Vaishnav W/o Sanjay Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Lohiya Nagar, Baloda Bazar, Police Station - City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station City Kotwali, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent 27.07.2021 Shri Pragalbha Sharma and Shri Shaleen Singh Baghel, Counsel

for the respective Appellants.

Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.

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

the appellants.

The appellants have been convicted under the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2019 passed

by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District - Balodabazar

(Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.05/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conviction

is founded on a weak, unreliable and uncorroborated testimony of a

child witness whose version of incident is improbable. It is next

submitted that even according to the child witness (PW-4) the incident

of assault took place all of a sudden after dining and because of an

unfortunate assault on the head by a cricket bat which was lying in the

house, death occurred, therefore, present is not a case of commission

of offence of murder, but the incident happened all of a sudden.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the evidence of the child witness despite detailed cross

examination could not be impeached and the child witness has

remained firm on the statement that the appellants joined together to

repeatedly assault the deceased on his head with multiple injuries so

much so that the deceased sustained serious internal injuries and died.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and particularly taking into consideration the evidence which has been made basis for conviction, we do not consider present to be a fit case

for grant of bail, accordingly the applications are, therefore, rejected.

List these appeals for final hearing.

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




Yasmin