Lalan Ram @ Bantu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3345 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                        Order Sheet
                                   CRA No. 789 of 2021
      Lalan Ram @ Bantu, S/o Daddi Baiga Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
       Madisarai, Police Station Janakpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            ---- Appellant
                                           Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
       Janakpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Respondent

29/11/2021 Ms. Usha Chandrakar, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, PL for the State/Respondent.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No. 01/2021 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 07/07/2021, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 82/2019, the Appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has wrongly convicted by the Trial Court without there being any clinching evidence available on record. She further submits that from the statement of Amar Singh (PW-2), it appears that he did not identify the assailant. From the opinion given by Dr. Pawan Kumar Gupta (PW-12), the victim has not sustained any grievous injury on his vital part. Therefore, conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that the Appellant may be granted benefit of bail.

On the other hand State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may not be granted benefit of bail.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused statements of the witnesses and other evidence available adduced by the prosecution.

Considering the evidence available on record and on perusal of statements of Lalsay Singh (PW-1), Amar Singh (PW-2) and Dr. Pawan Kumar Gupta (PW-12), at this stage, I am not inclined to release the Appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application (IA No. 01/2021) is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Shubham