Mohitram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 611 Chatt

                                                                                   NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                CRA No.223 of 2020

 •   Mohitram, Son of Ramprasad Kalar, aged about 31 years, resident of Gadhgodhi,
     Police Station Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh

                                                                             ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station, Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa,
    Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Respondent

25.06.2021 Shri Vivek Shrivastava, 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 10.12.2019 passed by the

learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District - Janjgir -

Champa (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.21/2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

prosecution case is founded on a very weak circumstantial evidence as

the dead body was found in the house of the appellant. He would

submit that the evidence on record proves that apart from the appellant,

there were many other members in the house namely appellant's

mother, father and sister and a child. It is next submitted that the evidence has also come on record that the varanda where the dead

body was found is not closed premise, and, therefore, possibility of third

person entering the house of the deceased could not be ruled out. The

evidence of extra judicial confession is also extremely weak because

the witness of extra judicial confession have stated that police had

prepared certain documents which was not readable to them and they

also do not know what documents were prepared. The recovery of shirt

and stole (gamchha) followed by FSL report only shows presence of

blood but it does not prove that it was human blood much less that of

the group and origin of the deceased.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits

that the evidence of the father and the mother of the appellant proves

the motive that the appellant was doubting the character of his wife. The

dead body was found in the house. The medical evidence proves that it

was homicidal in nature. The appellant gave extra judicial confession

before PW-3 and PW-5 regarding that he has killed his own wife. The

appellant's clothes were also found stained with blood.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and the circumstantial evidence based for conviction, 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