Chhotu Ram Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6419 Chatt

                                                 1

                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                           Order Sheet

                                      CRA No. 935 of 2019

  • Chhotu Ram Yadav S/o Late Tehguram Yadav Aged About 25 Years Caste Bargah,
     Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Chhindkalo, Pandapara, Police Station Darima,
     District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.                                                 ---- Appellant

                                               Versus

  • State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Surguja, District : Surguja,
     Chhattisgarh.                                                            ---- Respondent

20/10/2022 Ms. Indira Tripathi, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Rahul Jha, G.A. for the State.

Heard on repeat application (I.A. No.2) for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail to the appellant.

First application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail was

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 03.07.2019 with liberty to revive the

same after one year.

By the impugned judgment dated 25.05.2019 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G. in Sessions trial

No.105/2018, the appellant stands convicted as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 304 Part-II of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs.5,00/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further 3 months R.I.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without there being any

sufficient and clinching evidence available on record, the appellant has been

wrongly convicted by the trial Court under Section 304 Part-II. If the entire

case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the act committed by the appellant

would not travel beyond the scope and ambit of Section 326 or 325 of IPC,

the appellant is in jail since 20.09.2018 and there is no likelihood to decide this

appeal in the near future. Therefore, at this stage, the jail sentence of the

appellant may be suspended and he may be granted bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail and submits that on perusal of the

statement of the eyewitness Birendra (PW-7), it appears that the appellant

assaulted the deceased on his head, due to which, he died, therefore, the trial

Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement

of eyewitness as well as of doctor B.C. Paikra (PW-5). On perusal of their

statements and considering the detention period of the appellant, without

further commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that in this case

the benefit of bail should be granted to the appellant and his sentence may be

suspended.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail

is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the

appellant is suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a

personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one solvent surety of the like amount

to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of

this Court on 14.12.2022. He shall thereafter appear before the trial Court on

a date to be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to appear

there on all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval

being not less than 6 months, during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

Ravi