Ghurau @ Ghurau Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 773 Chatt

                                                                                 NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               CRA No.14 of 2020

 •   Ghurau @ Ghurau Baiga S/o Nanka Baiga Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
     Paremer, Police Station Kapu, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                           ---- Appellant

                                      Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kapu,
    District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Respondent

01.07.2021 Shri Vivek Bhakta, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Ravish Verma, G.A. 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 21.11.2019 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghora, District - Raipur

(Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.05/2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

prosecution case is extremely doubtful because evidence has come on

the record that the deceased was son-in-law of the so called eye

witness Budhwaro Bai (PW-2) and a suggestion has been given that the

PW-2 herself inflicted injury on the deceased and falsely implicated the

appellant. It is next submitted that the evidence of this witness is also not reliable as she is sole eye-witness and when she was confronted

with her case diary statement, it has come out that while in the case

diary statement the time of accident has been stated as 9.00 p.m. in the

night whereas in the Court evidence the time of incident has been

stated to be 3.00 p.m. which also renders prosecution story highly

doubtful. A different story as stated in the case diary statement and in

the court statement has come out as to what was the genesis of the

dispute, therefore, the suggestion given by the appellant that it is PW-2

who herself assaulted her son-in-law is a plausible defence.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the evidence of PW-2 is clear that the appellant had come to her

house and he assaulted Kiran due to which Kiran died. The conviction

of the appellant is founded on the eye-witness account of PW-2.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and particularly taking into consideration the evidence of sole eye -

witness/PW-2 which has bee 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