Chattisgarh High Court
Daulal Dhiwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No.1757 of 2019
1. Daulal Dhiwar Son Of Rama Dhiwar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Tekari,
Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Kamla Bai Dhiwar W/o Daulal Dhiwar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Tekari, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Vidhansabha, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
---Respondent
17/02/2022 Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Shivali Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2019, an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw the application of appellant No.1-
Daulal Dhiwar, hence, the application of appellant No.1 praying for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail is dismissed as withdrawn.
Appellant No.2 has been convicted and sentenced by the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2019, in
Sessions Case No. 102/2018, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions
Judge, Raipur (C.G.), with a direction to run both the sentences
concurrently, in the following manner :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 307 read with Section 34 R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.100/-
of Indian Penal Code. and in default of payment of fine,
additional R.I. for 01 month.
U/s. 302 read with Section 34 Life imprisonment and fine of
of Indian Penal Code. Rs.200/- and in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for 02 months.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant No.2 would
submit that the appellant No.2 is innocent and her conviction is totally
erroneous and bad in law. The statement of the victim P.W.-3 itself
reflects that there had been a simple quarrel between appellant No.2
and the victim, in which the appellant No.1 intervened and he stabbed
the deceased as well as the victim, which resulted in the death of the
deceased- Shankar Lal Nirmalkar. Therefore, there appears to be no
furtherance of common intention by the appellant No.2 in this case.
The appellant No.2 had been on bail during the trial, therefore, it is
prayed that she may be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this
appeal.
Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that according to
the statement given by P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, there appears to be active
participation of the appellant No.2 in the commission of offences of
murder and attempt to murder. Therefore, there is no case present for
grant of bail to the appellant No.2.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record of the trial Court.
Considering on the statement, perusing the evidence present on
this case and after due consideration, we are of the view that the
appellant No.2, who is a woman, hence, on this account also, she is
entitled for grant of bail during the pendency of appeal. Therefore, the
bail application filed by appellant No.2 is allowed.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail for appellant No.2, 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 25th April, 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
Monika
