Nandini Chouhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 830 Chatt

                                          1

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet

                              CR.A. No. 653 of 2021

Nandini Chouhan, W/o. Late Shri Shravan Singh Chouhan, aged about 37 years, R/
o. Ward No. 11, Goverdhan Nagar, Nevra P. S. Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                                             ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Station House Officer, Police Station Tilda,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Raipur

                                                                       ---- Respondent

Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. 17/02/2022 Ms. Shivali Dubey, P.L. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.1/2021, application under Section 389 of

Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Appellant has been convicted by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 17.03.2021, passed in S.T.

No.245/2018, by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur,

District- Raipur (C.G.) in the following manner with a direction to run

both the sentences concurrently :-

              U/s. 302 of the I.P.C.            : Life imprisonment and fine of
                                                  Rs.1000/-      and    in     default   of
                                                  payment of fine, further undergo
                                                  two         months             rigorous
                                                  imprisonment more.


U/s. 201 of I.P.C.              : R.I. for 3 years and fine of
                                  Rs.1000/-    and     in   default   of
                                  payment of fine, further undergo
                                  two         months          rigorous
                                  imprisonment more.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that the conviction against the appellant is totally erroneous and

without the evidence of prosecution brought beyond reasonable

doubt. On the basis of same set of evidence, co-accused Hanif

Khan was also prosecuted but he had been acquitted by the

learned trial Court.

It is submitted that the conviction against the appellant is not

sustainable for the reason that the cause of death of the deceased

as opined by the doctor in Ex.P-17 was clear that the death may be

homicidal. This opinion was drawn on account of some finding that

the neck bone was not found fractured. Dr. H.L. Jangde (P.W.-10)

has admitted in his cross-examination that in case of hanging, the

fracture of neck bone does not occur in all cases and he has also

admitted that he has not found any mark on the neck of the

deceased regarding strangulation. Further the appellant being the

woman does not have that physical power to strangulate to death

and hang the body of the deceased from roof, therefore, the

appellant has good case to argue in this appeal. It is prayed that the

sentence awarded to the appellant may be suspended and she may

be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It is submitted that the Dr.

H.L. Jangde (P.W.-10) has very clearly give opinion that the death

of the deceased was homicidal and further it is a case of suspicious

death inside the house of the appellant, therefore, she has the

burden to explain regarding the circumstances under Section 106 of

Evidence Act, therefore, the application be rejected.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records of the trial Court.

Considered on the submissions and perused the evidence

present in the record of the case. As the conviction is based only on

the evidence of circumstances and we have considered the same

and we are of this opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the

sentence and release the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021, application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail, is allowed.

Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant

shall remain suspended and she is directed to be released on bail

on her executing a personal bond for a sum Rs.25,000/- with one

surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her

appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10th May, 2022.

She 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 subsequent dates as are given to her by the said

Court, till the disposal of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                      Sd/-                                   Sd/-
               (R.C.S. Samant)                      (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                    Judge                                   Judge




balram