Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 August, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.1940 of 2019
Manoj and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh
DB
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
18/08/2022 Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.1/2022, repeat application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal
filed by and on behalf of appellant No.1 Manoj (A-1).
The appellants stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section
149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay
fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo
RI for three months by the impugned judgment dated 7-12-2019
passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar in
Sessions Trial No.15/2018. They have challenged the same in this
appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant No.1 would submit that there
is no evidence against appellant No.1 and he has been falsely
implicated and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is
perverse and no overt act has been caused by appellant No.1. He
would further submit that even Khuman (PW-9) - son of the deceased
has not stated any overt act attributed to appellant No.1, as the
allegation is against accused / appellant No.5 Pitamber (A-5), who
poured kerosene oil on the body of deceased Bangla Bai - mother of
Khuman (PW-9) and wife of appellant No.1 Manoj (A-1), therefore, on
merit as well as on the ground of parity, the application deserves to be
granted. He would rely upon the decision of the M.P. High Court in
the matter of Kailash and others v. State of M.P. 1 in support of his
contention.
Learned State counsel would submit that Manoj (A-1) is husband of
the deceased on whom kerosene oil was poured by co-accused
Pitamber (A-5) and the present appellant No.1 Manoj (A-1) was also
present, but he remained mute spectator in the offence and thus, he
has been convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC and
therefore he is not entitled to be granted bail. He would further submit
that the principle of parity would not apply as on 18-2-2020, the cases
of appellants No.2, 3, 4 & 6 for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail were considered and on that day, the case of appellant No.1 was
also considered and appellant No.1 has withdrawn his application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and therefore the principle of
parity would not apply to appellant No.1.
It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Bangla Bai sustained
92% burn injuries on 26-10-2017 at 6 a.m. and in her oral dying
declaration made in presence of Madhu Giri (PW-8) & Devmati (PW-
5), she had stated that it was accused / appellant No.5 Pitamber (A-
5), who poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze while the
accused persons including Manoj (A-1) was present. Khuman - son
of the deceased, has been examined as PW-9 and he has clearly
stated that Pitamber (A-5) poured kerosene oil on the body of his
mother along with other accused persons and Manoj (A-1) - his
1 2002(I) MPJR 355
father, was also present at that time.
In that view of the matter and considering the supporting evidence
available on record that being husband of the deceased, Manoj (A-1)
did not take any step to save the life of his wife Bangla Bai, we are of
the considered opinion that this is not the case for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1 Manoj (A-1).
Appellant No.1 Manoj (A-1) has also pressed the application I.A.
No.1/2022 on the ground of parity. Application of other co-accused
namely, appellants No.2, 3, 4 & 6 along with the application of
appellant No.1 was placed for consideration before a coordinate
Bench of this Court on 18-2-2020 on which date appellant No.1 had
already withdrawn his application and has now filed this repeat
application.
It is the case of appellant No.1 that his case is identical to that of
appellants No.2, 3, 4 & 6 as no overt act has been caused by them
and they were granted bail by this Court by order dated 18-2-2020,
but for the reasons assigned by us in the above-mentioned
paragraphs and on that day i.e. 18-2-2020, appellant No.1 had
withdrawn his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
unconditionally though claimed to be identical with appellants No.2, 3,
4 & 6 and in view of the consideration of the case of appellant No.1 on
merits and in view of the fact that he had already withdrawn his
application when similarly situated accused persons were granted bail
on 18-2-2020, we are not inclined to suspend the sentences imposed
upon appellant No.1 and grant him bail on the ground of parity, as it is
not applicable to him.
Accordingly, the repeat application (I.A. No.1/2022) for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.1 during the pendency of
appeal, is hereby rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Soma
