Narwan Korram @ Baadrai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 714 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 1730 of 2019
  • Narwan Korram @ Baadrai S/o Bansiram Korram Aged About 29 Years R/o
    Madam, Gram Panchayat Bade Pijondi, Police Station - Amabeda, Present
    Address - Murnar, Gram Panchayat Chingnar, Police Station - Tadoki District -
    U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh.                                  ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tadoki, District - Uttar Bastar,
    Kanker Chhattisgarh.                                        ---- Respondent

29-06-2021 Mr. Azad Siddique, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, PL for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 02/2019 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 06.09.2019 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District U.B. Kanker, CG in

S.T. No. 15/2015.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant's

conviction is more influenced by the evidence which was recorded in the

first round of trial against the co-accused before the arrest of the present

appellant than the evidence which has been recorded after the arrest of the

present appellant in his trial. He would argue that what has been stated by

PW-6 in his evidence particularly in the cross-examination clearly shows

that this witness could not see anything because of the distance and

darkness and this fact he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination.

Except this, there is no other evidence led by the prosecution against the

present appellant either any incriminating evidence of recovery, last seen or extra judicial confession.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that when

PW-6 - eye witness was again examined in the trial of the present

appellant, it was recorded by the Court that the witness was not prepared

to state further in addition to what has already been deposed by him earlier

which means that the witness reiterated his earlier statement. He would

further submit that in the examination-in-chief this witness has clearly

stated that when Johar and Mannu (Co-accused) were assaulting the

deceased, the present appellant was also present and what he has stated

in the cross-examination though raises some doubt, but his statements

recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC provides

corroboration.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties,

particularly taking into consideration the submission with regard to what

has been stated by PW-6 in the cross-examination regarding the distance

at which the incident happened and further considering that the

prosecution has not come out with any evidence of recovery, extra judicial

confession or last seen against the present appellant, we are inclined to

suspend the jail sentence and grant bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the

substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain

suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be released on

bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety of the

like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his

appearance before the concerned trial Court on 31st August, 2021 and 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.

Post the appeal for final hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

                             Sd/-                                  Sd/-
                  (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)              (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
                            Judge                                  Judge




Pawan Prajapati