Ram Singh Marko vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 972 Chatt

                                      -1-




                                                                             NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRA No. 1054 of 2019

Ram Singh Marko S/o Dhanlal Singh Marko Aged About 46 Years R/o Harratola,
Police Station- Gourela, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gourela,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondent

08/07/2021 Shri Anil Tripathi, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Shubham Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on IA No.2/2019, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, with default clause, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District- Bilaspur (CG).

Learned counsel for appellant would argue that the conviction of the appellant is founded on very weak circumstantial evidence that the appellant-husband and the deceased-wife resided in the same house, whereas, evidence of Rakesh Marko (PW9) itself shows

that at about 12:00 in the noon, appellant had visited house of the son in another village and declared that he was going to another village- Lalpur and there is no evidence led by the prosecution to prove that at and around the time of death of deceased, the appellant was in his residence. The evidence of extra-judicial confession given by Shweta Marko (PW7), the daughter, is also not reliable because this is complete improvement on her case diary statement (Ex.D-1). It is further submitted that mere evidence of strained relationship, incident of marpit with the deceased by the appellant and threat, without anything more, are only evidence of suspicion but not strong enough to draw inference that the appellant must have killed his own wife. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that Dr. B.S. Paikra (PW12) in his cross- examination has admitted that such injury, due to which deceased died, could be caused due to fall also.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submits that the prosecution has proved from the evidence that the appellant-husband and deceased-wife resided in one house and there was no other resident in the house. Son and daughter were residing in another village and that there is no evidence of appellant seen or present in village- Lalpur and further conduct of the appellant that the appellant eloped after the incident and matter was reported to the police by those who had seen dead body in the house. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, taking into consideration the circumstantial evidence which has been made basis for conviction

and sentence of the appellant, we do not consider present to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The application is accordingly rejected.

                    Sd/-                                          Sd/---
          (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                     (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                   Judge                                         Judge




Praveen