Chattisgarh High Court
Mohseen Khan @ Chuha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 451 of 2018
Mohseen Khan @ Chuha Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Proceedings through video conferencing
28/01/2022
Mr. Suresh Tandan, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Pathak, P.L. for the State.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2021 which is an application filed under
Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
to the appellant.
By the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2018 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 169/2015 by learned 9th Additional Sessions
Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), the appellant stands convicted
as under:-
Conviction Sentence In Default
U/s 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and to In default of payment
pay fine of Rs. 500/- of fine one month
additional R.I.
U/s 25 of Arms R.I. for one year and to pay In default of payment
Act fine of Rs. 500/- of fine one month
additional R.I.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the
first bail application of the appellant for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.04.2019 as not
pressed.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
present appellant is in jail since 24.04.2015 and Afzal Ahmed
(PW-12), who was the eye-witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution. The statement of Afzal Ahmed (PW-12) would reveal
that the deceased fell down on the knife and sustained injuries when
he tried to intervene the sudden fight took place between Afzal
Ahmed (PW-12) & the appellant/accused. He would further submit
that as per the statement of Afzal Ahmed (PW-12), the eye-witness,
the entire case of the prosecution is demolished and it is a case of
sudden fight, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned State counsel opposes the argument and referred the
statements of Lata Sagar (PW-2) and Afzal Ahmed (PW-12) and
would submit that according to Lata Sagar (PW-2), the entire
allegation is attributed to the present appellant/accused, therefore,
the application for suspension of sentence may be dismissed.
We have perused the statement and have given our anxious
consideration.
The eye-witness Afzal Ahmed (PW-12) in his deposition, did
not support the case of the prosecution. When he was declared
hostile on a suggestion given to him at para 8, he admitted the fact
that when he went to lodge the report of the incident, the police
recorded the same as narrated by him. He further admitted that he
disclosed to the police that the accused/appellant had inflicted injury
by way of knife over the abdomen of the deceased, thereafter, the
accused/appellant fled away. It is further disputed in the cross-
examination of Afzal Ahmed (PW-12) that the statement recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is marked by the accused as Ex.D-1 to
record the omission.
Bare reading of the statement 161 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-1) would
show that the entire allegation of inflicting injury by knife is on the
appellant. The Investigating Officer Yogita Khaparde (PW-14) has
also supported the same. Therefore, taking into such statements of
Afzal Ahmed (PW-12) read with statement of Yogita Khaparde
(PW-14) and the statement of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-19) who conducted
the postmortem, we are not inclined to allow the application for
suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 1/2021) for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail is hereby dismissed.
List this case for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Ruchi
