Chattisgarh High Court
Pandu @ Girwar vs State Of C.G on 21 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 222 of 2013
1. Ramgopal @ Gopal S/o Ishwar Chandel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
Chherkadih , P.S. / P.O. / Tahsil Palari , Distt. Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara C.G. ,
Chhattisgarh
2. Arun Nishad S/o Kashiram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Balodi , P.S. /
P.O./tahsil Palari , Distt. Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara C.G. , District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3. Noharlal Dewangan S/o Shaturghnal Lal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Balodi
, P.S. / P.O./tahsil Palari , Distt. Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara C.G. , District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through - The P.S. And Tah. Baloda Bazar In Distt.
Balodabazar - Bhatapara C.G. , Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
With
CRA No. 240 of 2013
1. Suraj Verma S/o Shri Munna Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village
Chherakadih, Post Balodi, Ps Palari, Tah. And Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
C.G. , Chhattisgarh
2. Hemant Kumar S/o Laharam Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village
Chherakadih, Post Balodi, Ps Palari, Tah. And Distt. Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara
C.G. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Ps Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur Now Baloda
Bazar - Bhatapara C.G.
---- Respondent
With
CRA No. 288 of 2013
• Pandu @ Girwar S/o Jagdish Manikpuri Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
Chherkadih, Thana Palari, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G.
----Appellant
Versus
• State Of C.G. S/o Through Ps Palari, Baloda Bazar Tah. Baloda Bazar Distt.
Raipur C.G.
---- Respondent
21-09-2021 Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Mr. Shobhit Koshta and
Mr. Pushkar Sinha, counsel for the respective appellant/s.
Mr. Ravish Verma, GA for the State/respondent.
Heard on prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by
the appellants. (Except Noharlal Dewangan).
At the outset it has been stated that one of the appellant Noharlal
Dewangan has been earlier released on bail upon suspension of sentence.
The appellants have been convicted under the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2013 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, CG in Sessions Trial No. 76/2012.
Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the entire basis
for conviction of the appellant i.e. identification of the accused and recovery of
allegedly looted articles has not been supported by independent prosecution
witnesses of memorandum, recovery and identification of accused namely
Satish Kaushik (PW-12) and Dharmraj (PW-13). He would further submits that
both these witnesses in their cross-examination have stated that even before
identification parade, all the accused persons were shown to the five family
members including identifying witnesses Purnima (PW-9) and Madheshwari
(PW-10). Witnesses also say that the accused were brought handcuffed and
there is no evidence to show that at the time of identification, handcuffs were
removed. The witnesses have identified by touching the accused without
specifically stating on what basis they identified.
Second of submission learned counsel for the appellants is that the
independent witnesses of memorandum and seizure, namely, Satish Kaushik
(PW-12) and Dharmraj (PW-13) have not supported prosecution case and
have stated that no statement was made by any of the accused regarding
they having committed offence with regard to keeping the allegedly looted
articles with them. Even, alleged recovery of the ornaments from the house in
the appellant have not been supported by these independent witnesses.
Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution has become extremely
doubtful and no conviction could be ordered. Lastly, it is submitted that the
appellants/accused have undergone more than 9 years and 5 months of jail
sentence till dates and therefore, at this stage, they may be granted bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that the
conviction the appellant is based on reliable testimony of Executive
Magistrate (PW-15) who conducted identification parade and also the
evidence of victim Purnima (PW-9) and Madheshwari (PW-10) who have
proved not only identification of the accused but also identification of various
stolen articles and it has clearly come that not only the accused but the looted
articles were also mixed with similar person and articles therefore, not with
standing that the independent witnesses have not supported, other witnesses
of prosecution have proof the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt.
Taking into consideration the submission learned counsel for the
parties, particularly taking into consideration the submission that the
independent witnesses of prosecution Satish Kaushik (PW-12) and Dharmraj
(PW-13) have not supported the prosecution case, turned completely hostile
and had gone to the extent of stating that even before conducting
identification parade, all the accused persons were shown to the victim family
member/witnesses and further taking into consideration that the independent
witnesses have neither supported recording of memorandum statement nor
recovery of stolen articles at the instant of the appellant and that at this stage,
all the appellants have undergone more than 9 years and 5 months of jail
sentence, we are inclined to allow suspension application filed by appellants.
Accordingly, the appellant (Pandu @ Girwar, Ramgopal @ Gopal, Suraj
Verma, Hemant Kumar and Arun Nishad) shall be released on bail on each of
them furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- each along with two local
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for
their appearance before the concerned trial Court on 25th 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
