Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 983 of 2020
1. Deepak Dhruv S/o Rajendra Dhruv, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Ufra,
Police Chouki Kandrka, Thana Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
2. Milan Yadav @ Gajni S/o Ballu Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Ufra,
Police Chouki Kandrka, Thana Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Chouki
Kandrka, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
with
CRA No. 111 of 2021
• Tukaram Nishad S/o Purushottam Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ufra
Police Chowki Kandarka, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Outpost Kandarka, Police Station Berla,
District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
21-06-2021 Mr. R.K. Pali, counsel for the appellants/CRA No. 983/2020.
Mrs. Anubhuti Marhas, counsel for the appellant/CRA No.
111/2021.
Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. GA for the State/respondent.
Heard on prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed
by both the appellants.
The appellants have been convicted under the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2020 passed
by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara,
CG in Session Trial No. 26/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that as far as
identification parade is concerned, it has become doubtful because the
identification was conducted long after the arrest of the accused and
there is every possibility of the accused having already been shown to
the victim Surendra (PW-1). It is next submitted that even in
identification proceeding appellant/Deepak Dhruv could not be identified
by victim Surendra (PW-1), therefore, his identification becomes highly
doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant/Tukaram would submit that
the cash amount which has been seized does not connect.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that
conviction of the appellant is founded on identification and recovery of
cash amount of Rs. 3000/- and Adhar card copy victim PW-1 from
Tukaram, cash amount of Rs. 2500/- from Deepak, and cash amount of
Rs.4000/- from Milan, all of them have been identified at the dock.
Taking into consideration submission learned counsel for the
parties, particularly taking into consideration that as far as Deepak is
concerned, the identification parade proceedings show that the victim
(PW-1) Surendra could not identify him in identification parade but
claims to have identified during the trial, and that recovery of Rs. 2500/-
is said to be made from him, therefore, we are inclined to suspend the
jail sentence of Deepak Dhruv in CRA No.983/2020, as far as appellants
Tukaram and Milan are concerned, considering the evidence of
identification and recovery, we are not inclined to grant bail to them,
therefore their application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is
rejected.
In the result substantive jail sentence of appellant Deepak Dhruv
in CRA No.983/2020 is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail
sentence imposed upon the appellant/Deepak Dhruv shall remain suspended
during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two local sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance
before the concerned trial Court on 17th August, 2021 and on all such further
dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than 6
months, till final disposal of this appeal.
List these cases for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Pawan Prajapati
