Virendra Kumar Dhruve vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 58 Chatt

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           CRA No. 472 of 2017

              Virendra Kumar Dhruve, S/o Narayan Dhruve, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village
               Navagaon Bani, Police Station Dhamdha, Civil and Revenue District Durg,
               Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

                                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                                  Versus

              State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Civil
               District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

                                                                                 ---- Respondent

05/01/2022 Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Soumya Rai, PL for the State.

Heard on IA No.1/2020, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 30/11/2016 passed by the 6 th Additional Sessions

Judge, Durg(C.G.) in Session Trial No.- 102/2016, the Appellant stands convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code : Life imprisonment & fine of amount Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further six months additional simple imprisonment.

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the applicant is totally erroneous without the support of evidence of prosecution of quality beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses Narayan (PW-1), Toran(PW-2) and Malti(PW-3) have not supported the prosecution version and instead they have made statement in cross- examination, that the appellant was not present on the spot when the incident occurred which has not been believed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has relied upon the FIR Ex. P-21 which is a confessional statement before police, hence, it does not have evidentiary value. The ground of alibi has been proved by the appellant which was not at all taken into consideration, hence, the 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 trial.

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction against the appellant is based specifically on the basis of presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the other evidence present regarding the lodging of FIR by the appellant himself which has been proved by the Investigation Officer, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail to the appellant, therefore, the application be rejected.

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

Considered on the submissions. After perusing the evidence present on the record of the trial Court, we are of this 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.

                               Sd/-                                             Sd/-

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




Nisha