Chattisgarh High Court
Raja Kannaujiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1155 of 2017
1. Raja Kannaujiya S/o Laxman Kannaujiya Aged About 26 Years
2. Shankar Kannaujiya S/o Laxman Kannaujiya Aged About 22 Years
3. Rajkumar Kannaujiya S/o Laxman Kannaujiya Aged About 30 Years
4. Smt. Santoshi W/o Rajkumar Kannaujiya Aged About 28 Years
5. Smt. Urmila W/o Laxman Kannaujiya Aged About 50 Years
All are resident of Ward No. 12, Budhwari Para, Dongargarh, Police Station
Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaron Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
Proceeding Through Video Conferencing
15/02/2022 Shri B.P. Singh, counsel for the Appellants.
Smt. Hamida Siddique, Dy. A.G. for the State/Respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.1/2019, which is a repeat application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to Appellant No.1.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.6.2017 passed by the Additional Judge,
Dongargarh to the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajnandgaon(CG) in Sessions Trial No. 21/2016, the
Accused/Appellant No.1 stands convicted under Sections 302/34
and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life and fine of Rs.2000/-, and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-
with usual default stipulations.
Learned counsel for Appellants submits first bail application
of Appellant No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.1.2018 along
with the other Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and subsequently, Appellant
Nos. 2 and 3 were enlarged on bail on 02.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the
conviction has been made only on the basis of statement of Dr.
Suchita Shrivastava (PW-10) and the Doctor's statement also
cannot be relied upon and does not inspire confidence. Though the
crime scene was at the house of the Appellant, but the burden of
proof by the prosecution cannot be shifted. He placed his reliance in
the matter of Mulak Raj and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in
(1996) 7 SCC 308, and would submit that under the similar
circumstances when though the dead body was found in the house
of the accused, the benefit of doubt was given by the Supreme
Court, which the same law is still being followed in 2022, therefore,
the Appellant, who is in jail since 15.6.2016 may be enlarged on
bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and would submit that as per the postmortem report, the
tongue was stuck in between the teeth and both eyes were bulge
out, the neck was deep depressed. Apart from this, there was
fracture of vertebral bone. There is superficial burn over hair, face,
back, both arms and both legs, therefore, it is a clear case of
murder and after murder, she was burnt.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record carefully.
Ex.P-14 is the merg intimation, which was made by this
Appellant, wherein, the death of Priti Kannaujiya, wife of the
Appellant was reported to be caused by burning. Ex. P-16, the spot
map of the crime scene would show that the dead body was found
in the bed-room inside the house and that was lying on the sofa-
cum-bed. The statement of the Dr. Suchita Shrivastava(PW-10)
read with Ex. P-11, the postmortem report would show the opinion,
which was given by the Doctor that the death was homicidal in
nature and it was due to asphyxia on account of strangulation and
thereafter the body was found.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
taking into consideration the crystal clear evidence led by the
prosecution connecting the Appellant's involvement in commission
of offence, we are not inclined to allow the application.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal))
JUDGE JUDGE
sunita
