Chattisgarh High Court
Babulal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Criminal Appeal No. 1328 of 2018
Babulal, S/o Jogiram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o- Village- Rapakherwa
Manendragarh, Thana- Manendragarh, Civil and Revenue District- Korea,
Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The District Magistrate, Korea, District- Korea,
Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
11/03/2022 Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.2/2021, this is repeat application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
The earlier bail application filed by the appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
22.07.2019.
Appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 27.07.2018, in Sessions Case No. 51/2014, passed
by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District- Korea (C.G.) as
under:-
Conviction Sentences
Under Section 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs. 1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to further
undergo S.I. for one month.
Under Section 201 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default of payment of
fine to further undergo S.I. for
one month.
Both the sentences to run concurrently
Learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit that the
conviction of the appellant is erroneous and without having any basis of
evidence and the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Dead body of the deceased was recovered from near a
river which was in a decomposed condition. Learned trial Court made
assumption that the appellant had caused death of the deceased and
buried her. PW-19 Dr S.N. Gupta, who conducted postmortem of the
deceased, has not given definite opinion about mode and manner of death
of the deceased. The only other evidence against the appellant is his
conduct, which has been taken into consideration by the trial Court as
he did not inform any person regarding missing of the deceased who was
his wife. The appellant is in jail for the last about 8 years and there appears
no possibility of this appeal being heard finally in near future. Therefore,
looking to the length of detention of the appellant, it is prayed that he may
be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned State counsel opposes the application and
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted
that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court.
Considering on the above submissions, looking to the nature and
quality of evidence on record, the detention period of the appellant i.e.
about 8 years and that there appears to be no likelihood of final hearing of
this case in near future, we feel inclined to allow this application.
Accordingly, I.A. 2/2021, application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail to the appellant is allowed.
Execution of substantive jail sentence imposed on appellant shall
remain suspended during pendency of this appeal and he shall be released
on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one
local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9th of May, 2022. He shall
thereafter appear before the trial Court on a date to be given by the
Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear there on all such
subsequent dates as are given to him by the said Court, till disposal of this
appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) (Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge Judge
vatti
