Ganesh Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1438 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  Order Sheet

                              CRA No. 534 of 2020

                 Ganesh Sinha     Versus   State Of Chhattisgarh




21/03/2022

Mr. Samir Singh, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A.No.4/2020, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for six months and R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for two months respectively by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham (CG) in Sessions case No.10/2019 vide judgment and order of sentence dated 25/02/2020. He has challenged the same in this appeal.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant has murdered his daughter-in-law and thereby committed the offence.

Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit the appellant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the deceased fell down from the stairs of the bathroom. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident and the FSL report that shows presence of blood on the stone, does not prove group and origin of the blood. Therefore, the appellant may be released on bail giving benefit of doubt.

On the other hand, Mr. Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there was motive to kill the deceased as the deceased was being harassed in connection with demand of dowry. Rajesh (PW6), neighbour of the appellant, has stated that at about 11 AM, he heard the sound of maar-peet from the house of the appellant and the deceased was crying. In the evidence of Santuram (PW4), brother-in-law of the appellant, it has come that there was demand of motor cycle from the matrimonial house.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the circumstantial evidence and evidence of Rajesh (PW6) and Santuram (PW4), we do not find it to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Accordingly, I.A.No4/2020 is rejected.

                       Sd/-                            Sd/-          -
              ( Sanjay K. Agrawal)                 (Rajani Dubey)
                      Judge                            Judge




B/-