Chattisgarh High Court
Jagannath Ratre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 574 of 2020
1. Jagannath Ratre S/o Ramautar Ratre, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhursuda, Police
Station Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Perdeshi Ram Koshle, S/o Parasram Koshle, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Koni,
Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present
Telibandha Raipur, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhura, District
Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
16/09/2021 Ms. Usha Chandrakar, counsel for the appellant/s.
Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on application (I.A.No.1/20) for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29/02/2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case
No.12/2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conviction of
the appellant is founded only on suspicion but there is no legally admissible
evidence which taken together with the appellant's conduct would lead to
reasonable inference that in all probability, the appellant and the appellant
alone has killed his wife. The evidence of the brother - Jageshwar Prasad
Nirmalkar (PW1) and father Hirau Nirmalkar (PW17) is that the deceased
had married the appellant - Jagannath 10 years before and since it was a
love marriage, all the relations were broken and since then, there was no
contact nor they had seen them. He would also submit that the evidence of
Jageshwar Prasad Nirmalkar (PW1) itself shows that the dead body could
not be identified as stated in his cross- examination. There is no evidence
of last seen nor any other incriminating evidence to connect the appellant
with the alleged commission of offence. Dead body was not found in the
house but in the jungle. Therefore, the conviction is not sustainable in law
and the appellant may be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the evidence
of the father and brother show that 10 years before, the appellant -
Jagannath had married the deceased. It is next submitted that the dead
body of the deceased was found in jungle and as the appellant - Jagannath
had not reported about the incident anywhere nor in the police, his conduct
points only on him as the accused. He would also submit that Jageshwar
Prasad Nirmalkar (PW1) has identified the dead body as that of Manju
Nirmalkar (the deceased).
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,
particularly taking into consideration that the involvement of the appellant is
based on the allegations of having killed his own wife and also taking into
consideration the submission that the evidence with regard to identification
of the dead body is doubtful and there is no other circumstantial evidence,
the dead body was found in the jungle and not in the house, we are inclined
to grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the application (I.A.No.1/20) is allowed. The substantive
jail sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended and he is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- along with one local surety for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the
concerned Trial Court on 26/10/2021 and on all such further dates as may
be directed, interval being not less than 6 months, during the pendency of
this appeal.
List this matter for final hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Deepti
