Rajkumar Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1470 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      Order Sheet

                                 CRA No. 1126 of 2021

                    Rajkumar Banjare Versus State of Chhattisgarh




22/03/2022

Mr. N.K. Malviya, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Somya Rai, 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 31.12.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasmaund, District- Mahasamund (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. 1000/- of fine 06 months additional R.I.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased in her two dying declarations (Ex.P/1 dated 14.12.2016 & Ex.P/24 dated 19.12.2016) has stated that she accidentally suffered burn injuries and as such on the basis of the said dying declarations of the deceased, his conviction is bad, illegal and contrary to law, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance in the matter of Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 5 SCC 222.

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the third dying declaration (Ex.P/32) of the deceased was recorded on 24.12.2016 by the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar Anubhav Sharma (P.W.-25) in which the deceased has clearly implicated the appellant herein and the conviction of the appellant is substantially based upon the evidence of the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar Anubhav Sharma (P.W.-25) and Dr. Manpreet Gurudatta (P.W.-27), therefore, appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

Taking into consideration the dying declaration (Ex.P/32) given by the deceased, statements of the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar Anubhav Sharma (P.W.-25) and Dr. Manpreet Gurudatta (P.W.-27) and the evidence available on record, we do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 1/2021) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is hereby dismissed.

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




Ruchi