Chattisgarh High Court
Ganga Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1087 of 2021
• Ganga Banjare W/o Gopal Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Satnami
Para, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir, Hasaud,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
05/01/2022 Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, counsel for the appellant/s.
Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L. for the State.
Heard on application (I.A. No.1/2021) for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail.
By the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.41/2020,
the appellant stands convicted as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 364 of IPC Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of
Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine
amount further 1 month R.I.
Under Section 364 of IPC Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of
Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine
amount further 1 month R.I.
Under Section 307 of IPC Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of
Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of
fine amount further 3 months R.I.
Under Section 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of
fine amount further three months R.I.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the
appellant rests upon the statement of Ku. Nigita (PW-4) and Ku. Ragini
Sonwani (PW-7) as both are child witnesses. According to the learned counsel
for the appellant, there are child witnesses and their statements are not
reliable. It would further submit that there is no other material available on
record on the basis of which the appellant can be convicted, therefore,
conviction imposed upon by the learned trial Court to the appellant is not
sustainable. The appellant is in jail since 24.09.2019 and the appeal will take
some more time to be finalised, therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may be
released on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that both the eyewitnesses of the case i.e. Ku. Nigita (PW-4) and
Ku. Ragini Sonwani (PW-7) have supported the entire case of the prosecution.
Further, referring to the statement of Smt. Laxmi Nirala (PW-6) i.e. mother of
the deceased and Smt. Jugbai (PW-11) it would submit by him that both the
above witnesses have also categorically stated that on being searched, Ku.
Nigita (PW-4) was found inside the house of the appellant and the dead body of
the deceased was found in front of the house of the appellant on sand-dunes.
Thus, there is sufficient evidence available on record against the appellant and
therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
statements of the witnesses and other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
On due consideration, we do not find any good ground for grant of bail to the
appellant.
Application (I.A. No.1/2021) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail
is accordingly rejected.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Ravi
