Sevakram Patila vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 843 Chatt

                                                                                  NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No.138 of 2020

 •   Sevakram Patila S/o Late Gotilal Patila, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Camp - 2,
     Behind Murkutta School, Budha Bihar, Police Station, Chavani, District : Durg,
     Chhattisgarh

                                                                           ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Chavani, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Respondent

05.07.2021 Shri Vikram Dixit, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Shubham 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 27.11.2019 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) in

Sessions Trial No.175/2018.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conviction

is founded on doubtful circumstantial evidence which does not prove

the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit

that none of the witnesses have said that they witnessed the incident of

alleged pouring of kerosene by the appellant on his own wife and

setting her on fire, but the evidence of the witness is based more on oral dying declaration which is also doubtful. It is next submitted that

there is no dying declaration and no other evidence to prove that the

appellant set his own wife on fire.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that in the background of deceased found burnt and died due to burning

with smell of kerosene all over her body, there is clinching evidence of

oral dying declaration as given by the deceased to as many as three

witnesses PW-1, PW-5 and PW-8, out of which PW-5 and PW-8 are the

independent witnesses and PW-1 is the son of the deceased and there

is no reason as to why the son would falsely implicate his own father for

murder of the mother.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and particularly taking into consideration the evidence of oral dying

declaration given to PW-1, 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