P Murli Mohan Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1514 Chatt

                                                                                   NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 CRA No. 306 of 2017
  • P Murli Mohan Rao S/o late Shri P.S. Rao, aged 46 years, R/o 54/A Railway
    Colony Zone-1, BMY Charoda, P.S. GRP Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
                                                                            ---- Appellant
                                         Versus
  • State of Chhattisgarh Through : GRP Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
                                                                           --- Respondent

23/03/2022 Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2018, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.30/16, Appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/-, plus default stipulation.

On 20.07.2017, first bail application of the Appellant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the same after two years in case the appeal is not decided on its merit.

Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no direct or indirect evidence on record and the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence of last seen and evidence of Mohd. Altaf (PW/11). He would further argue that there is no legally admissible evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime in question, and even no one has seen the Appellant and the deceased together at the scene of crime. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Court below did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective. The Appellant is in jail since 18.10.2016, there is no likelihood of his appeal being decided in near future and the Appellant, being the sole earner of his family, may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the bail application argued that the Appellant and deceased was last seen together by Mohd. Altaf (PW/11), according to him, the Appellant was standing outside of office of deceased and later she was found dead. The Appellant, who was last seen by PW/11, was under obligation to offer plausible and probable explanation but no such explanation has been offered by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to how deceased died, therefore, the application of the Appellant for suspension of sentence is liable to be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Taking into consideration postmortem report Ex.P/7, according to which, the cause of death of deceased was homicidal in nature and further considering the statements of Suryakantam (PW/6), mother of the deceased, and evidence of last seen Mohd. Altaf (PW/11), we are not inclined to suspend the jail sentence imposed against the Appellant.

Accordingly, I.A.No.01/2018 is rejected.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.

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