Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Dewangan @ Chhotu @Bau vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 November, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2020
1. Devendra Dewangan @ Chhotu @ Bau, S/o Gendram Dewangan, aged about
24 Years, R/o Daupara Arjunda, Police Station Arjunda, District Balod,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Bhisham Kumar Sahu @ Daddu Sahu, S/o Rajkumar Sahu, aged about 23
Years, R/o Tikari, Police Station Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
3. Mojesh @ Monti Dewangan, S/o Ramkumar Dewangan, aged about 21 Years,
R/o Dhangaon, Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
4. Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare, S/o Narayan Banjare, aged about 23 Years, R/o
Dharmapur, Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basatpur, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
16/11/2021 Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Sunil Otwani, Additional A.G. for the
State/Respondent.
Heard I.A. No. 01/2020, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
1. By the impugned judgment dated 21/01/2020
passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon
(C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.20/2018, appellants stand
convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned
below :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 363 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.100/- with default
stipulations.
U/s 364 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.200/- with default
stipulations.
U/s 364-A of the I.P.C. R.I. for life imprisonment
and fine of Rs.300/- with
default stipulations.
U/s 368 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years and fine of
Rs.100/- with default
stipulations.
U/s 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms R.I. for 1 year and fine of
Act Rs.100/- with default
stipulations.
All sentences to run concurrently.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
appellants have been wrongly convicted by the trial Court
without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence
against them. He would further submit that the conviction of
the appellants is only based on test identification parade
conducted by the prosecution. According to the learned
counsel, kidnapped child namely Nishant Sharma (PW-1) has
admitted in his cross-examination that before test identification
parade, he has seen all the appellants inside the concerned
police station, therefore, test identification parade is
suspicious and on the basis of the said, conviction is not
maintainable.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the same
and supported the judgment of conviction. Referring to the
statement of the kidnapped boy Nishant Sharma (PW-1), Mr.
Otwani would submit that Nishant Sharma firstly identified the
appellants at the time of incident itself and during the trial also,
at the time of recording of his statement, he again identified
the appellants in the Court. It is further argued that Nilesh
Choubey (PW-2) i.e. uncle of Nishant Sharma and Jagannath
Prasad (PW-4) have also supported the case of prosecution.
Thus, trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the record of the trial Court minutely, gone through
the statements of the witnesses and other material available
on record.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by the
prosecution, particularly on perusal of statements of Nishant
Sharma (PW-1), Nilesh Choubey (PW-2) and Jagannath
Prasad (PW-4), in our considered view, it is not a fit case for
grant of benefit of bail to the appellants. We do not find any
good ground to allow the instant application.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2020 is dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Prakash
