Sankra Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2087 Chatt

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                                  CRA No. 153 of 2020
  • Sankra Yadav S/o Mahesh Ram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village
    Aamapal, P.S. Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

                                                                           ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
  • State    Of   Chhattisgarh    Through   P.S.   Chakradharnagar      District   Raigarh
    Chhattisgarh.                                                       ---- Respondent

01-09-2021 Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the appellant/s.

Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy. GA for the State/respondent.

Heard on I.A. No. 02/2020 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 24.05.2017 passed by the Fifth

Upper Sessions Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh, CG in Sessions Trial No.

05/2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conviction

has been ordered by the learned trial Court ignoring the prosecution's own

document in the form of dying declaration recorded by an Executive

Magistrate in which it has been clearly stated that the deceased caught fire

due to accident and placing reliance upon a concocted story of dying

declaration developed after the deceased died due to burn injury a week

after the date of incident and recording of dying declaration, there being no

other report during this period of one week by any of the witnesses of oral dying declaration namely Bund Kunwar (PW-3), Dilkhush Yadav (PW-4)

and Jagarmati (PW-6).

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

learned trial Court has found the dying declaration doubtful for the reason

that in-laws including the husband of the deceased were present and

therefore, the dying declaration in all probability was under pressure and

not voluntary and taking into consideration that there is other evidence with

regard to cruelty committed on the deceased.

Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties,

particularly taking into consideration that the prosecution itself has come

out with recording of dying declaration (Ex.P-6), the evidence of Executive

Magistrate (PW-14), certificate of fitness given by the doctor and further

taking into consideration that during the period the deceased remained

admitted in the hospital from 17.07.2016 to 24.07.2016, none of the

witnesses Bund Kunwar (PW-3), Dilkhush Yadav (PW-4) and Jagarmati

(PW-6) lodged any report and that allegation of setting the deceased on fire

was made only after death and that the appellant has already undergone

more than 4½ years of jail sentence, we are inclined to allow the

application and 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. 25,000/- with two local sureties of the

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

appearance before the concerned trial Court on 04th October, 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