Ghaldu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 607 Chatt

                                                                                  NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No.176 of 2020

  •   Ghaldu, S/o Late Shri Amin Sai, aged about 45 years, Resident of Village - Jamhor
      (Jamroli) Police Station - Shankargarh, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                            ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station House Shankargarh, District -
    Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Respondent

25.06.2021 Shri Ashok Varma, Counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, 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 31.12.2019 passed by the

learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District -

Balrampur, Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.71/2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that in the present

case, the conviction is based only on doubtful circumstantial evidence as

nobody has seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. He would

further submit that merely because the dead body was found in the

house of the appellant, the burden to explain as required under Section

106 of the Evidence Act could not be fastened on the appellant when the

prosecution failed to prove other incriminating circumstantial evidence. The further submission is that no specific motive has been proved as to

why the appellant would kill the deceased. The memorandum of the

accused is not supported by the independent witness PW-7 and PW-8

and recovery of axe is also doubtful as the witness say that they signed

on a blank paper. The axe said to be recovered does not contain blood of

the group and origin of that of the deceased. Therefore, it is argued that

each of the circumstantial evidence are doubtful.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5/the son of the deceased proves

that the appellant had taken the deceased in his house and thereafter,

dead body of deceased was found in the house of the appellant. The

medical evidence proves that it was homicidal in nature, as the death

was caused by an axe injury. The evidence of PW-8 is that in the house

of the appellant, blood stained axe was seized and in the FSL report it

has been found that it was stained with human blood. The appellant

neither explained as to how deceased died homicidal death in his house

nor explained how axe was stained with human blood.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties,

further considering the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the

learned trial Court to convict the appellant, 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