Chattisgarh High Court
Nitesh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 September, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2021
• Nitesh Kumar, S/o Ashok Kumar Ostwal (Jain), Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sadar Ward,
Shankar Ward, P.S Bhatapara (City), Bhatapara District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bhatapara City, District
Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
17/09/2021 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sushil Sahu, P.L. for the State/Respondent.
Shri T.K. Jha, Counsel for the Victim.
Heard I.A. No. 01/2021, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. H-05/2015, appellant
stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307
and 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years
and fine of Rs. 30,000/-, and R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.
20,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the appellant is innocent and has been wrongly convicted by the
trial Court without there being sufficient and clinching evidence
available on record against him. Referring to the statements of
Shanti Lal (PW1), Unnati Jain (PW2) and Soma (PW3), it has
been submitted by learned Counsel that since there are material
contradictions and omissions occurred in their statements and
they have enlarged their statements, therefore, their statements
are not reliable. Further referring to the statement of Dr. S.K.
Jiwanmall (PW9) and Nilesh Jain (PW10), it has been argued by
learned Counsel that the medical report of the victim, her
statement and her father's statement do not corroborate the case
of the prosecution. It is further argued that the injuries occurred to
the victim are simple in nature and none of the injuries is
dangerous for life. Therefore, conviction under Section 307 of the
I.P.C. is not sustainable. There is also delay in lodging the F.I.R.
During trial, appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the
liberty granted to him. Since 19.03.2021, i.e. after the judgment of
trial Court, appellant is in jail. Therefore, it is prayed that the
sentence imposed upon the appellant may be suspended and he
may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
victim oppose the above contentions and support the judgment of
conviction. Shri T.K. Jha, learned Counsel for the victim submits
that though nature of injuries of the victim are simple in nature but
total 10 injuries occurred on her head which shows the intention of
the appellant. It is further submitted that though there are some
lacuna on the part of the prosecution, the appellant should not get
benefit thereof. Thus, trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the instant application be rejected.
Heard the parties, perused the record of the trial Court and
also gone through the statement of the witnesses.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, on
perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution and particularly
considering the fact that during trial, appellant was on bail and he
has not mis-used the liberty granted to him, without further
commenting on other merits of the case, I am of this opinion that it
will be proper to release the appellant on bail during the pendency
of this appeal.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2021 is allowed.
It is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed
upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency
of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in
the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16.12.2021. He
shall thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date given by
the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all
such subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till
disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2/2021 and I.A. No.5/2021 i.e.
application for ad-interim bail and application for urgent hearing,
respectively are disposed of.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
