Rahul Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6384 Chatt

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      Order Sheet

                                 CRA No. 571 of 2021

  1. Rahul Sahu S/o Ramanand Sahu, Aged about 30 years, R/o Chirpani Rajeev
     Nagar Dongargarh, P.S. dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

  2. Ranjeet Sahu S/o Ramanand Sahu, Aged about 22 years, R/o Chirpani Rajeev
     Nagar Dongargarh, P.S. Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                         --- Appellants

                                          Versus

     State   of   Chhattisgarh     through    SHO,   Dongargarh,    Distt.   Rajnandgaon,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     --Respondent

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

19.10.2022 Mr. B.P. Singh, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L. for the State.

Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Vide impugned judgment dated 27/03/2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 8/2019, learned Additional Session Judge Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine, 1 month R.I. to each.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the incident is said to have been witnessed by Kamlesh Joshi (P.W.-4) but it has not been corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. S. Choudhary (P.W.-6), Dr. Nilesh Gupta (P.W.-9), Dr. Anil Baghel (P.W.-10) and Dr. R.K. Patel (P.W.-15) as the deceased died on account of pneumonia. Furthermore, considering the postmortem report (Ex. P/7) and the injuries suffered by the deceased and his x-ray report (Ex. P/13), and further considering that no seizure has been made from appellant No. 2 Ranjeet Sahu and the pipes seized vide Ex. P/2 and P/4 were not sent for FSL, the appellants could not be connected with the offence in question and the prosecution story is doubtful and prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, as such, the appellants deserve to be released on bail. He would rely upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Majju and Another v. State of M.P.1, Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka2 and Subhash v. State of Uttar Pradesh3.

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that considering the testimony of eye-witness Kamlesh Joshi (P.W.-4) who has clearly stated that the two appellants have assaulted the deceased by iron pipes which have also been recovered pursuant to their memorandum statements. He would further submit that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Ram Padarth Singh and Others4.

Taking consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and role of the

1 (2001) 9 SCC 449 2 (2022) 2 SCC 801 3 (2022) 6 SCC 592 4 (1998) 6 SCC 240 present appellant and considering the statement of eye- witness Kamlesh Joshi (P.W.-4) as well as considering that seizure of iron pipes have been made from the appellants pursuant to their memorandum statements and other incriminating evidence available on record, we are not inclined to grant suspension of sentence and bail to the appellants.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 stands rejected.

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