Akash Kosare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3312 Chatt

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2021

  1. Akash Kosare S/o Chandrahas Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Daimar, P.S.
     Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

  2. Sanju Vaishnav S/o Dileshwar Vaishnav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
     Daimar, P.S. Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Appellants

                                        Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Nevai, District Durg
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Respondent

25/11/2021 Mr. B.P. Singh, Counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.

Heard I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

1. By the impugned judgment dated 24/02/2021

passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District -

Durg, (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.87/2019, appellants stand

convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned

below :-

                        Conviction                    Sentence

             U/s 364/34 of the I.P.C.       R.I. for 7 years each and fine
                                            of Rs.500/- each with default
                                            stipulations. (Fine amount
                                 has been paid)

U/s 394/34 of the I.P.C.        R.I. for 7 years each and fine
                                of Rs.500/-each with default
                                stipulations.

U/s 302/34 of the I.P.C.        Imprisonment for life to each
                                appellant and fine of Rs.500/-
                                each,         with     default
                                stipulations.

U/s 201/34 of the I.P.C.        R.I. for 5 years each and fine
                                of Rs.500/- each with default
                                stipulations.

U/s 120-B of the I.P.C.         R.I. for 5 years each and fine
                                of Rs.500/- each with default
                                stipulations.

              Sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would submit that in the present case, there is no any eye-

witness and conviction of the appellants is based on the

circumstantial evidence only. Gaurav Swarnkar (PW-3) and

Satyajeet Rawat (PW-6) are the witnesses of last seen

together and they both have not stated anything regarding

the identification of the appellants as well as the deceased,

despite of that trial Court has convicted the appellants on the

basis of statement of these witnesses. He would further

submit that though on the basis of disclosure statements of

the appellants, some articles have been seized which

belongs to the deceased but only on that basis, the

conviction of the appellants is not sustainable. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon (2014) 6 SCC 745 Dhan Raj

alias Dhand Vs. State of Haryana; (2014) 12 SCC 133

Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka; and (2020) SCC Online

SC 473 Sonu alias Sunil Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would

oppose the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

appellants and submit that there is sufficient evidence

available on record against the appellants. He would further

argue that on the basis of disclosure statements of the

appellants, not only ornaments of the deceased has been

recovered but on the basis of said disclosure statement,

bones of the deceased, one tiffin of deceased in burnt

condition, one key and one wrist watch of the deceased were

also seized. Further, referring to the statement of Nilesh

Tiwari (PW-8), he would submit that according to the case of

prosecution, deceased was an aged person and deceased

was abducted and taken away by the appellants in a vehicle

bearing registration number CG 04 LJ 9533 which belongs to

Nilesh Tiwari (PW-8). As per the statement of Nilesh Tiwari,

the vehicle was taken away by appellant No.2/Sanju

Vaishnav and hair of an aged person has been seized from

the said vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.P-22. Thus, looking to

the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, trial Court

has rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, they should

not be granted benefit of bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused

the entire records of the trial Court, statements of the

witnesses and other evidence adduced by the prosecution

minutely.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions of

learned counsel for the parties, evidence adduced by the

prosecution and on perusal of statements of Anant

Dewangan (PW-2), Panchram Dewangan (PW-4), Nilesh

Tiwari (PW-8), Anil Kumar Dewangan (PW-11) and Sheikh

Mohammad (PW-20), in our considered view, it is not a fit

case to grant bail to the appellants herein.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021 is dismissed.

7. Post the appeal for final hearing.

                        Sd/-                         Sd/-
                (Sanjay K. Agrawal)          (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                       Judge                             Judge




Prakash