Chattisgarh High Court
Bir Ram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 September, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 234 of 2021
Bir Ram Yadav S/o Late Hariram Yadav Aged About 55 Years Bahatanagar
Junapara, Station Pathalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pathalgaon, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
21.09.2021 Shri Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Ravish Verma, Dy. G.A. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur
(Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No. 22/2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned
trial Court has convicted the appellant for alleged murder of his wife
even though a very plausible and possible defence of alibi was set
up not only on the evidence of defence witness Bharti Bai (DW-1) -
appellants' own daughter, but the evidence of Dinesh Yadav (PW-5) -
appellants' own son and both of them have clearly stated in their
evidence that a day before the incident, the appellant had gone to
the another village and residing with his daughter - Bharti Bai (DW-
1). Bharti has stated that as soon as her brother informed that her
mother died, she, her husband and her father (the accused) came in
motorcycle and reached some times in the midnight.
The evidence of extra judicial confession as given to
Satyanarayan Yadav (PW-9) is highly doubtful because he is not firm
in his statement and in any case only on that basis, without any other
evidence, given a strong plea of alibi, the appellant was entitled to be
acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and submits
that the plea of alibi set up by the appellant is an afterthought as the
appellant has not come up with the plea of alibi by giving such
suggestions to all the witness except to his own son/PW-5 and the
evidence of his daughter Bharti - DW-1 is not reliable because in her
cross-examination, she is not able to clearly state the date on which
information was received and the date on which her father had come
and they had come back. He would also submit that the plea of alibi
is not plausible and evidence of extra judicial confession would come
in the front and the appellant was required to explained as to how his
wife died homicidal death, as required under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act.
Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for
the parties and particularly taking into consideration the evidence of
PW-5 and DW-1, the son and daughter of the appellant regarding
appellants' presence in the house of his daughter - Bharti in another
village, at the time of incident, the evidence of PW-9 regarding he
changing his stand and except that, there is no other circumstantial
evidence of clinching nature to connect the appellant with the alleged
commission of offence, we are inclined to suspend the jail sentence
of the present appellant.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the
substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall remain
suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be
released on bail 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 27th 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
Yasmin
