Bhagwanti Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 833 Chatt

                                                                                   NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No.403 of 2020

 •   Bhagwanti Bai W/o Kalthan Sarthi Aged About 40 Years R/o Shivpur Para, Police
     Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

                                                                            ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office Police Station Lakhanpur,
    District Surguja Chhattisgarh

                                                                         ---- Respondent

05.07.2021 Shri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Anurag Verma, PL 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 11.02.2021 passed by the

learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja

(Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.115/2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the

present case the conviction has been ordered on extremely doubtful

evidence led by the prosecution, which fails to satisfy the requirement of

proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that though in the FIR

lodged by the wife of the deceased, appellant has been named but the

FIR was lodged after two days. The wife of the deceased who lodged

FIR has been examined as prosecution witness and she has not

remained firm in her evidence because though this witness stated regarding the appellant assaulting the deceased, in the cross

examination she admits that she could not see who assaulted her

husband. It is further argued that the FSL report though reports

presence of human blood on the clothes, but the independent witnesses

of memorandum and seizure have not supported the prosecution case,

therefore, seizure of clothes from the appellant based on the evidence

of Investigating Officer is also very doubtful. It is also submitted that the

clothes were subjected to examination long after seizure, therefore, it is

wholly improbable that any blood stains remained on the clothes,

capable of being tested and, therefore, the FSL report itself is very

doubtful.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the conviction of the appellant is founded on the evidence led that

deceased/son of the appellant died homicidal death in his house, where

the appellant, wife of the deceased and children resided, statement of

PW-2 wife of the deceased, presence of human blood on the clothes of

the appellant and the appellants' own conduct.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and particularly taking into consideration the evidence on the basis of

which the conviction has been ordered, 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