Hemane Mourya @ Amane Mourya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2572 Chatt

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                              CRA No. 1082 of 2019

   Hemane Mourya @ Amane Mourya S/o Baishakhu Mourya, aged about 25 years,
   R/o Village Kurenga Dhakad Para, P.S: Parpa, District: Bastar, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

   State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station: Parpa, District: Bastar Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Respondent

27.09.2021 Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Sushil Sahu, P.L. for the State/Respondent. Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard I.A. No.1/2019, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 31.05.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.37/2018 by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, District: Jagdalpur (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

Conviction Sentence In Default

U/s 304 (II) of IPC RI for 10 years with a In default of payment fine amount of of fine amount Rs.500/- additional RI for 3 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court in the judgment without there being any sufficient evidence available on record. He submits that the appellant is in detention since 06.02.2018, conviction of the appellant is based only on oral dying declaration given by some witnesses. Thus, witnesses have not made any statement regarding weapon of offence used in this case. The Doctor examining the deceased after the incident has made admission in his cross-examination, that the deceased had informed him that he had suffered road accident. The I.O. (PW-12) has also made admission in his cross-examination that he did not made any investigation regarding road accident, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Hence, it is prayed that his application be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submissions made in this respect. He has submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, conviction and sentence against the appellant is proper and he is not entitled to be released on bail.

Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.

After perusal of the evidence present in the record of the Trial Court and considering the submissions that have been made by counsel for the appellant, I feel inclined to release the Appellant on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

Execution of substantive jail sentences imposed upon the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 01.12.2021. He shall thereafter appear before the Trial Court on a date to be 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 the disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Saurabh