Chattisgarh High Court
Johar Mandavi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No.353 of 2017
1. Johar Mandavi S/o Late Faguram Mandavi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Murnar, Police
Station Tadoki, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh
2. Mannuram Mandavi, S/o Johar Mandavi, Aged About 25 Years R/o Murnar, Police Station
Tadoki, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ----Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Tadoki, District North
Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent
08/07/2021 Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Ravish Verma, G.A. for the State.
Heard on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellants have been convicted under the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2017 passed by Sessions Judge,
North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.26/2015 for the offence as
follows :
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302/34 of For life imprisonment and fine of
IPC Rs.5000/- in default of payment of
fine 3 months additional R.I.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the conviction of
the appellants is founded on the sole evidence of so-called eyewitness Sukdev
(PW6), who has clearly stated in his cross-examination that the road through
which he was passing, was about 100 gaj away from the field, it had become
dark, he could not see who were quarreling neither he heard nor he seen
anything nor he can say that from whose weapon, Phool Singh died. He would
submit that except this, there is no other evidence of recovery, extra-judicial
confession or last seen to connect the appellant with the offence.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that Sukdev (PW6) was
re-examined by the trial Court on subsequent date wherein, he stated regarding
he having given a voluntarily statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the
Magistrate regarding the incident, therefore, the said statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. provides corroboration to the evidence of Sukdev (PW6).
Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the
parties, particularly taking into consideration that the conviction of the appellant
is based on the evidence of Sukdev (PW6) and further taking into consideration
what has been stated by Sukdev (PW6) in his cross-examination regarding the
distance being 100 gaj, it was dark in the night and it has been stated that he
could not see who were quarreling neither he heard nor he seen anything and
further considering what has been stated by this witness in his cross-
examination on subsequent date and that except this, there is no other
corroborative evidence of extra-judicial confession or last seen or recovery and
the axe has not been found to be bloodstained, we are inclined to allow the
application.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the substantive
jail sentence awarded to the appellants shall be released on bail on each of them
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for their appearance before the
concerned Trial Court on 31st August, 2021 and on all such further dates as may
be directed during the pendency of this appeal and thereafter in interval which
shall not be less than six months.
List this case for final hearing along with CRA No.1730 of 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Rekha
