Raghu Manjhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 774 Chatt

                                                                                   NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No.286 of 2020

 •   Raghu Manjhi, S/o Late Hawal Manjhi, aged about 33 years, Occupation -
     Former/Labor, R/o Village - Katkola, Sherramar, Police Station - Sitapur, District :
     Surguja, Chhattisgarh

                                                                             ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District :- Surguja,
    Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Respondent

01.07.2021 Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. 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 Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) in

Sessions Trial No.93/2019.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

prosecution case is founded on a very weak circumstantial evidence of

last seen and extra judicial confession. He would submit that existence

of one single injury on the head of the deceased, which is of grievous in

nature reflects that there was no intention to cause death and probably

in some dispute, the appellant may have wielded weapon, which struck on the head of the appellant's father resulting in unfortunate death,

therefore, it would only be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to

murder. The appellant has already undergone almost three years of jail

sentence, therefore, sentence may be suspended.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that in present case the evidence of none other than appellant's own

wife is with regard to quarrel between the appellant and the deceased

and thereafter the deceased was found dead with a grievous injury on

the head resulting in fracture, which is stated to be cause of death. This

has been supported from the evidence of wife and also PW-1, evidence

of independent witness PW-2, who has deposed that when he came to

the house of the appellant he saw that the appellants father was lying in

pool of blood with injury, the appellant was present and the appellant

confessed that he had assaulted his father.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and particularly taking into consideration the evidence with regard to

extra judicial confession, last seen, nature of the injury and failure on

the part appellant as to how injury was found on the head of his father

and further taking into consideration the prosecution evidence regarding

presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellant and axe, 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