Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CR.A. No. 291 of 2017
Santosh Dewangan, S/o. Late Kriparam Dewangan, aged about 25 years, R/o.
Village- Telangan, Police Station Gendatola, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, The Station House House Officer, Police Station-Gendatola,
District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant.
13/01/2022
Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, G.A. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2022, second application under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
The first bail application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to renew the prayer after two years vide order dated
31.08.2017.
Appellant has been convicted by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 18.01.2017, passed in Special Session Case
No.17/2016, by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Rajnandgaon
District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in the following manner with a direction to
run both the sentences concurrently :-
U/s. 302 of the Indian Penal : R.I. for life and fine of Rs.100/-
Code and in default of payment of fine,
further undergo 3 months R.I.
U/s. 3 (2) (v) of S.C.& S.T. : R.I. for life and fine of Rs.100/-
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and in default of payment of fine,
1989 further undergo 3 months R.I.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. is not at all
made out on the basis of the evidence present in this case. The
conviction is based only on the evidence of the witness Shivdayal
Chandrawanshi (P.W.-6), who has clearly stated that it was the
deceased, who went to the house of the appellant in inebiriated
condition and he abused the appellant, when the incident took place.
The appellant without any intention had hit the deceased with wooden
piece, which has resulted in his death, therefore, the conviction of the
appellant may be at the most under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C.. The
appellant has already undergone more than five years in jail, which is
appropriate sentence for the offence he has committed. Therefore, it is
prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be suspended
and he 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
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and it is
clear case of intentionally causing death of the deceased, therefore,
the application be rejected.
Considered on the submissions. Taking into consideration, the
statement of Shivdayal Chandrawanshi (P.W.-6) and the doctor
conducting the postmortem Dr. Smt. Kiran Chandekar (P.W.-11), we
are of the considered view that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence
and release the appellant on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2022, application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant
shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on
his executing a personal bond for a sum Rs.50,000/- with one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 25th April, 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
subsequent dates as are given to him 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
