Chattisgarh High Court
Raghubir Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1011 of 2014
• Raghubir Gond S/o Duvaruram Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Dhutamar Dee Piparkhar, Ps Rajhara, Civil And Rev. Distt. Balod C.G.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Ps Rajhara, Civil And Rev. Distt. Balod C.G.
---- Respondent
11-06-2021 Mrs. C.K. Navrang, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Dy. AG, for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021 application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2014 passed by the Sessions
Judge Balod, District Balod, CG in Session Trial No. 15/2014.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that from the
prosecution evidence itself it is established that when the witnesses
went to the room of the deceased and the appellant, the husband wife,
both were lying on the floor in injured condition and the appellant had
also sustained many injuries on various vital parts of the body.
Therefore, possibility of a third person having entered the house of the
deceased and the appellant assaulting both of them resulting in death of
wife of the appellant cannot be ruled out.
Learned counsel for the appellant would further argue that the
evidence of all the prosecution witnesses clearly shows there was no
pending dispute between the husband and wife and they were living
peacefully in their married life therefore, in the absence of there being
any motive, involvement of the appellant in the alleged commission of
offence when he himself was found injured, renders the entire case of
the prosecution highly doubtful and the appellant ought to be acquitted
by giving benefit of doubt.
On the other hand learned State counsel would argue that the
evidence of prosecution witness which has been relied upon by learned
trial Court is that just before the incident the appellant had entrusted the
ornaments of his wife to his mother as stated by his brother (PW-1) and
mother (PW-2). Soon thereafter they were cries and when witnesses
went inside the room they found that the wife of the appellant was lying
in pool of blood, appellant was found holding a knife in his hand which
was blood stained and many injuries were also found on different part of
the body of the appellant. These injuries on medical examination have
been found to be minor in nature and doctor (PW-10) has clearly stated
in the cross-examination that the injury on various parts of the body of
the appellant were simple nature and are self inflicted and cannot be
said to be caused by other person. The suggestion given to the
witnesses that when ambulance arrived, the appellant came out holding
an axe in his hand inquiring who killed his wife, has been denied by all
the witnesses and on the contrary the witnesses have said that the
appellant was holding axe saying that he will kill his father. Lastly, it is
submitted by State counsel that as many as two prosecution witnesses
PW-6 and PW-9 who were independent witnesses, have clearly stated
that upon being inquired, the appellant voluntarily confessed that he
killed his wife.
Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for
the parties, particularly taking into consideration the evidence regarding
appellant's conduct just before and after the incident in entrusting
jewelry of his wife to mother and then challenging his father to kill,
evidence of the doctor that the injury on appellant appeared to be self
inflicted and the evidence of extra judicial confession as contained in the
evidence of PW-6 and PW-9, we do not consider present to be a fit case
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Therefore, the application
is rejected.
List this appeal for final hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Pawan Prajapati
