Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkumar Chandra @ Nikku And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 734 of 2014
1. Rajkumar Chandra @ Nikku S/o. Devnarayan Aged About 21 Years R/o.
Bartunga, P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Khaendra Singh @ Ketan S/o. Prahlad Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o. Savanai
Pali, P.S. Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G.,
Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
25/06/2021 Mr. Dhirendra Pandey, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. for the State/respondent.
Heard on application (I.A. No.1/2020) for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail filed by two appellants namely- Rajkumar Chandra @
Nikku and Khaendra Singh @ Ketan.
The appellants have been convicted under the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2014 passed
by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjdir-Champa
(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.219/2012 for the offence as follows :
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302 and 302 of Life imprisonment and fine of
IPC Rs.2,000/-, and Life
imprisonment and fine of
Rs.2,000/-.
Under Section 449 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
Under Section 460 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
Under Section 394 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
Under Section 394/397 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.1000/-.
If fine amount is not deposited,
for that 1 month, 1 month, 15
days, 15 days, 15 days R.I.
Under Section 25 (1B-B) of For appellant No.2- R.I. for 1
the Explosive Act year and fine of Rs.200/-.
Under Section 27 of the For appellant No.2- R.I. for 3
Explosive Act years and fine of Rs.1000/-.
If fine amount is not deposited,
for that 1 week and 15 days
R.I.
Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the
appellants have been convicted for commission of offence of murder
and dacoity without there being any legally admissible evidence to
connect to involve the appellants in the alleged commission of offence.
It is argued that though the prosecution alleges that one axe and one
kataar (sharp aged object) was seized on the basis of memorandum of
the appellants, none of these articles have been found to be stained
with blood much less human blood of the group and origin of the
deceased person. It is further argued that some cash amount of
Rs.16,500/- is said to have been seized from the appellants but there is
no identification that it belong to the deceased and the amount is not so
much so that possession of cash of Rs.16,500/- by itself were
incriminating in nature as to involve the appellants in alleged
commission of offence. It is submitted that thus none of the recovery
made against the appellants involves the appellants in the said offence.
It is submitted that on such a weak evidence of recovery of articles
which do not connect the appellants in the alleged commission of
offence, conviction has been ordered.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that
though there is no eyewitness to the incident, when the appellants were
taken into custody, on the basis of their memorandum, two weapons
allegedly used in the commission of offence were seized from two
different places as disclosed. He submits that though these articles are
not blood stained, the recovery of weapons from the possession as
disclosed by the appellants in their memorandum statement as also
recovery of Rs.16,500/- from the one of the appellants as against the
allegation of loot from the deceased, by itself is sufficient to order
conviction.
Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties, taking into consideration that the only basis for conviction of
the appellants is recovery of certain weapons and cash amount and the
weapons are not found to be stained with any blood and there is no
identification of the cash amount nor the cash amount is very high and
except this evidence, there is no other material evidence to prove
involvement of the appellants in the alleged commission of offence, in
our consideration, present is a fit case for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellants.
Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail of appellants- Rajkumar Chandra @ Nikku and Khaendra Singh
@ Ketan is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence
awarded to the appellants is suspended and they shall be released on
bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- 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
09.08.2021 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the
said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, during the pendency
of this appeal.
List the matter for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Ravi
