Laxman Sori vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 257 Chatt

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                             CRA No. 682 of 2021

    Laxman Sori S/o Chamar Sori, aged about 38 years, R/o Village
    Gourmund, Police Station: Mainpur, District: Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh through - Police Station Mainpur, District :
    Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondent

14.01.2022 Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. for the State/Respondent. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment date 26.02.2021 passed in S.T. No.45/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District: Gariyaband, (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted as mentioned below:

                  Conviction                 Sentence                 In Default

                U/s 302 of IPC         RI for life with a fine In default of payment
                                       amount of Rs.1,000/- of       fine    amount
                                                             additional RI for one
                                                             year.

It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. The only witness of prosecution Punit Ram (PW-1), has not witnessed the incident himself, therefore, he is the heresy witness. The other witness Rajulal (PW-2), has stated that the deceased may have died because of her fall after being intoxicated. The other witnesses of the prosecution have also not made any statement against the appellant. Hence, the conviction against the appellant is not sustainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be granted bail.

State counsel opposes the application and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is clear evidence present establishing the circumstances which lead to the conclusion that the appellant is only person who has caused the death of the deceased. Hence, there is no case made out for grant of bail to the appellant.

Heard both the parties and perused the record of the Trial Court.

Considered on the submissions. After going through the evidence present in the case against this appellant. We are of this view, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the application is rejected.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021 is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

                      Sd/-                                        Sd/-
          (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)               (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                       Judge                                      Judge


Saurabh