Banshilal Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2245 Chatt

                                       -1-




                                                                                   NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             CRA No. 438 of 2020

Banshilal Netam S/o Late Chaituram Netam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village-
Kanwar Ama, Police Station- Mainpur, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., District :
Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                            ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate, District- Gariyaband,
Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Respondent

09/09/2021 Shri MPS Bhatia, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Heard on IA No.1/20, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2020 passed in S.T. No.23 of 2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (CG).

Learned counsel for appellant would argue that conviction of of the appellant is based on the evidence of Smt. Rajantin Bai (PW1) who has clearly stated in her cross-examination that neither the house of the appellant is visible from her house nor she had seen

the incident and she has also admitted that she does not know how the incident happened and that she reached the spot only after the incident and by that time her mother-in-law had already died. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even Lagni Bai (PW10), wife of the appellant, does not support prosecution case and there is no evidence that at the time when the deceased died, the appellant was seen present at the spot along with bow. Therefore, it is prayed, jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be suspended.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the application. He submits that in the cross-examination and the examination under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, Smt. Rajantin Bai (PW1) has clearly stated that it is the appellant who had assaulted the deceased and the evidence of other witnesses are relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as the incident was immediately disclosed to them and it followed lodging of report also against the appellant and a bow was seized from him.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the evidence of Smt. Rajantin Bai (PW1) and what she stated in her cross-examination, we consider it to be an appropriate case for suspension of sentence and granted of bail to the appellant.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along 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 21 st October 2021 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than six months, till final disposal of this appeal.

List the appeal for final hearing.

                        Sd/-                                       Sd/-
            (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)                (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
                       Judge                                      Judge




Praveen