Chandresh @ Chandu Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2321 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet

                              CR.A. No. 545 of 2018
Chandresh @ Chandu Verma, S/o. Ramkumar Verma, aged about 32 years, Cast-
Lodhi, R/o- Dilippur, P.S. Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, and District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
                                                                        --- Appellant.
                                       Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - P.S. Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
                                                                       ---Respondent

14/09/2021 Mrs. Kiran Jain, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Alok Nigam, Govt. Advocate for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.1/21, repeat bail application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The first bail application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.10.2018.

Appellant has been convicted by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2018, passed in S.T. No.20/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh (C.G.) in the following manner :-

U/s. 307 of the Indian : R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/- Penal Code. and in default of payment of fine, further under go 6 month of R.I.

more.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been erroneously convicted without there being any evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the appellant has undergone about five years in jail out of the total sentence imposed of 10 years. The appellant has not committed any offence. The most of the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. The conviction is based only on the evidence of victim (P.W.-13) and examining doctor (P.W.-12). The statement of the victim (P.W.-13) is not reliable, therefore, the conviction against him is bad in law. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of imprisonment against the appellant be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It is submitted that the statement of the victim (P.W.-13) is clear and categorical against the appellant, which has been corroborated by the evidence of doctor (P.W.-12), therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the application be rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

Considered on the submissions. After perusing the evidence present on record and the manner, in which, the offence is alleged to have been committed, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1/21, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is rejected.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

balram