Chattisgarh High Court
Purnesh Kumar Dhiwar @ Dokesh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 February, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 825 of 2016
• Purnesh Kumar Dhiwar @ Dokesh S/o Atmaram Dhiwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Dongakahrod, P.S. Pamgarh, Presently Risiding At Bhojpur, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
16/02/2022 Mr. Sumit Singh, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Himanshu Sharma, P.L. for the State.
Heard on repeat application (I.A. No.1/2021) for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
11.01.2017.
By the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No.38/2016, the appellant stands convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302 (two count) of IPC Imprisonment for life (two count) and
fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount, additional R.I.
for 6 months.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction against the
appellant is totally erroneous and bad in law. The case was based only on
circumstantial evidence. There is no proof or evidence present in this case.
Witnesses of last seen namely Bihari Lal Yadav (PW-1) and Santoshi Bai (PW-
3) have not supported the prosecution case although they have made
statement about seeing some person running away from the spot, but they
have not identified him as the appellant. The other witnesses in this regard are
the heresy witnesses and there is no mention of the source. The blood stained
clothes of the appellant and the deceased were seized in the investigation and
the same were sent for FSL examination, but there is no FSL report present to
confirm that the blood stains present on the cloth of the appellant were that of
human, hence, the appellant has a good case to argue in this appeal. It is next
submitted that the appellant is in jail since more than 5 years, therefore, it is
prayed that the appellant may be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The witnesses namely Baldau Prasad Dhiwar (PW-8) and Jawahar Lal
(PW-10) have stated that they came to know that it was the appellant who had
killed both the deceased persons. Therefore, there is no case made out for
grant of bail to the appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Considered on the submissions. After taking into consideration the
statement given by Bihari Lal Yadav (PW-1) and Santoshi Bai (PW-3) who were
persons examined in the last seen circumstance and for the reason that these
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and also the other
circumstances, we are of this view that the appellant should be granted bail
during the pendency of this appeal.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the
appellant is suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 05.05.2022. 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 may be directed by the said Court, interval being
not less than 6 months, during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Ravi
