Sukram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 456 Chatt

                                      1

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 Order Sheet
                      Criminal Appeal No. 846 of 2021
Sukram Yadav, S/o. Sahatram Yadav aged about 44 years, resident of village -
Dhobhni, police Chowki - Beladula police station Sarseewa, District Baloda
Bazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---- Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station- Sarseewa, District- Baloda
Bazar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---Respondent

25/01/2022 Smt. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Himanshu Sharma, P.L. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 17.3.2021 passed by the Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2020, the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is bad in law. It is based only on the evidence of extra-judicial confession and other circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has not proved the complete chain of circumstantial evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Hence, he may be granted bail during the pendency of

the appeal.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application. It is submitted that the prosecution is completely proved the chain of the circumstances. According to which, the appellant has been rightly held guilty by the learned trial Court. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the Court below.

Considered on the submissions and perused the evidence present on record of the trial Court. We are of the considered view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Consequently, the same is rejected.

Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2021, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant is rejected.

List this appeal for final hearing in due course.

                      Sd/-                                  Sd/-

               (R.C.S. Samant)                    (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                     Judge                                  Judge




Nimmi