Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Khilawan Satnami (Bharti) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 77 of 2022
• Ram Khilawan Satnami (Bharti) S/o Khiruram Bharti Aged About 42 Years R/o Murum
Khadan, Nevai, Police Station Nevai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Navai, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
-----Respondent
03/08/2022 Shri Shikhar Bakhtiyar, counsel for the appellant/s.
Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A.No.1, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
The appellant has been convicted under the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/12/2021
passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge District - Durg,
Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.148/2017.
Case of the prosecution is that the appellant abused and
assaulted injured, thereby committed offence under Section 294 and
307 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even the
prosecution evidence is taken as it is, offence under Section 307 IPC
is not made out. He further submits that there was no premeditation
and the incident occurred all of a sudden as the appellant was
quarreling with his daughter and the injured came to intervene and on
sudden provocation, the injury sustained. It is further submitted that
out of four injuries, three are simple in nature and one injury is
subjected to further specialty advice. The injured was admitted in the
hospital from 26/06/2016 till 03/06/2016. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the appellant has committed offence under Section 307 of IPC.
Therefore, conviction under Section 307 IPC is bad in law. He relies
upon statement of the doctor (PW5) and injured (PW1) and also
placed reliance on admission report (Ex.P/7). Further submission is
that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the
liberty. Till today, the appellant has completed 10 months and 16
days of total sentence awarded. It is further prayed that the appeal is
not likely to be heard early, therefore, the application may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
doctor in para 9 of his deposition, has categorically stated that if the
victim was not given proper treatment, he would have succumbed to
death and the victim was admitted in the hospital for 7 days. He
submits that looking to the statement of the doctor and statement of
injured victim (PW1), the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail but
he fairly submits that the incident occurred on a sudden quarrel.
Looking to the injuries sustained by the victim, statement of the
doctor (PW5) and victim (PW1), the manner in which the incident took
place, MLC report and that the appeal is not likely to be heard early, I
am inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1 is allowed. Accordingly, the substantive
jail sentence awarded to appellant is suspended and he is directed to
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 11/10/2022. 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 further dates as
are given to him by the said Court, during the pendency of this
appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Deepti
Judge
