Munna Mandavi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6575 Chatt

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Order Sheet

                            CRA No. 1520 of 2021

• Munna Mandavi S/o Mangda Mandavi, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village - Kumakoleng
  Nayapara, Thana - Puspal, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma,
  Chhattisgarh                                                       --- Appellant.

                                       Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana - Puspal, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh, District :
  Sukuma, Chhattisgarh                                                    --- Respondent

DB Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

03.11.2022 Mr. Samir Singh, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Ishan Verma, PL for the respondent/State.

1. Heard on IA No.1/2021 - Application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

2. The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-; and under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500, plus default stipulations vide judgment dated 01.11.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada in Sessions Case No.119/2018.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is contrary to law; there is no direct evidence against the appellant; there is no eye witness to the incident and that prosecution case is completely based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances is not complete, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant as also there are eye witnesses to the incident i.e. PW-5 - Sanni Mandavi and PW-6 Ku. Fagni Mandavi (child witness), therefore, the bail application of the appellant is liable to be rejected.

5. Taking into consideration the evidence of Sanni Mandavi (PW-5) and child witness Ku. Fagni Mandavi (PW-6), who are the eye-witnesses to the incident and further considering that blood stained axe and t-shirt have been seized from the possession of the appellant vide FSL report (Ex.P-22) and other evidence available on record, we do not find present to be a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, IA No.1/2021 is rejected.

                    Sd/-                        Sd/-
            (Sanjay K. Agrawal)        (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                  Judge                      Judge


Ajay