Bodhiram Sen vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2692 Chatt

                                                                                 NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    CRA No. 734 of 2015

 • Bodhiram Sen S/o Bhuwan Lal Sen Aged About 40 Years R/o Sondra, Police
   Station- Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Appellant

                                         Versus

 • State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
   Dharsiwa, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Respondent

26/04/2022 Shri Akhil Mishra, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Soumya Rai, PL for the State.

Heard on application I.A. No. 02 for suspension

of sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellant

against the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Raipur district Raipur in S.T. No.

52/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- with

default stipulation.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the

judgment of the trial court is based on circumstantial

evidence and the main circumstance is that the accused

was last seen along with the deceased which is not

proved by the prosecution. He further submits that the finding of trial court is based on extra judicial confession

which is not at all clear and that the accused has only

stated before the witnesses Mallu and Ramhin Bai (PW-

6 and 15) that he has done a very big mistake and this

statement cannot be meant that he has confessed his

guilt. He submits that the appellant has prima facie a

very good case in his favour and will succeed in the

appeal. Lastly, he submits that the appeal will take time

for its final disposal therefore he may be released on

bail.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the

application and submits that prosecution has proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has

rightly convicted the appellant therefore, the application

is liable to be rejected.

Considering the submissions of counsel for the

parties and after going through the statements of PW-6,

7 and 8 namely Mallu Yadav, Parmeshwari Goswami

and Malashia Nishad, we are not inclined to allow the

application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail

to the appellant. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

                        Sd/-                        Sd/-

                 (Sanjay K.Agrawal)           (Rajani Dubey)
                      Judge                      Judge
suguna