Chaitram Rathiya @ Khunda vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 486 Chatt

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                          CRA No. 690 of 2021

             1. Chaitram Rathiya @ Khunda, S/o Vipatram Rathiya, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
                Village - Aamgaon, Police Station - Tamnar, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                                  Versus

             1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station -
                Tamnar, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                 ---- Respondent

27/01/2022 Mr. Atul Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Shivali Dubey, PL for the State.

Heard on IA No.1/2021, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 25/02/2021 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District-Raigarh(Chhattisgarh) in Session Trial No.- 06/2019,

the Appellant stands convicted as under:-

                         Conviction                                      Sentence

             U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code         : Life imprisonment & fine of amount Rs.500/- and in
                                                    default of payment of fine further two months
                                                    additional rigorous imprisonment.

             U/s 452 of Indian Penal Code         : Rigorous imprisonment 5 years & fine of amount

Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further two months additional rigorous imprisonment.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been erroniously convicted by the learned trial Court without their being any evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitness of this case Geeta Sidar (PW-3) is not a reliable and trustworthy witness. Apart from that there is no witness against the appellant, hence, appellant has a good case to argue in this appeal, therefore, it is prayed that he may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits, that it is a clear case of murder, which is supported by the eyewitness Geeta Sidar (PW-3) and the other circumstantial evidence, therefore, the application be rejected.

We have heard both the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

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

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

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




Nisha