Suresh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5872 Chatt

                                                1
                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                            ORDER SHEET
                                         Cr.A. No. 320 of 2021

  Suresh Kumar S/o Poonaram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Aroud, P.S.
   And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         ---- Appellant
                                                    Versus
  State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Respondent

Division Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

19.09.2022 Shri B. P. Singh, counsel for the Appellant.

Shri Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent.

Heard on I.A. No.01/2021, an application for suspension of sentence and

grant of bail.

By the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2021 passed by Special Sessions

Judge (under prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) District Balod (C.G.) in Special

Sessions Case No.68/2018, the Accused/Appellant stands convicted under

Sections 342 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one year and life

imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- respectively and in default of payment of fine

amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section

302 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit :-

(1) that only on the basis of motive that has been found established, the appellant

has been convicted.

(2) that the trial Court has disbelieved the child witness PW-2 Prashant Netam and

further held that PW-1 Pankuram Netam, PW-3 Sanchit Yadav and PW-6 Kanti Bai

have not witnessed the incident and in absence thereof the conviction has been

recorded, which is illegal and bad in law;

(3) that pursuant to the memorandum of the Appellant, the bamboo stick/rod has

been seized but it has not been sent to FSL therefore, it could not be established

as to whether it was human blood and furthermore the recovery is the only piece

of evidence, therefore, merely, on the basis of recovery, the conviction recorded is

bad in law;

(4) that the co-accused, namely, Bheekham Lal in similar set of evidence has been

acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, the Application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the witness of

the memorandum seizure, namely, Najru Ram PW-7, has proved the recovery of

weapon of offence. He submits further that the motive has been found established

by testimonies of PW-1 Pankuram Netam, PW-2 Child Witness Prashant Netam,

PW-4 Dharmendra Kumar and PW-6 Kanti Bai as such the application for

suspension of sentence deserves to be disallowed.

Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and further taking into consideration that the trial Court has disbelieved the

child witness PW-2 Prashant Netam and further that PW-1 Pankuram Netam, PW-

3 Sanchit Yadav and PW-6 Kanti Bai have not witnessed the incident as held by

trial Court and weapon of offence bamboo stick/rod, it could not be established as

to whether it was stained with human blood or not and that the other co-accused,

namely, Bheekham Lal in similar set of evidence has been acquitted, we are of the

considered opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the jail sentence imposed upon

the Appellant.

Accordingly, I.A. No.01/2021 is allowed and it is directed that the jail

sentence imposed upon the Appellant shall remain suspended during the

pendency of this Appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the

satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry on 02.12.2022

and thereafter, he shall appear on all such further dates before the trial Court as

may be given by Registry during the pendency of this appeal. However,

observation made herein-above is only confined to disposal of bail application and

shall not be construed as opinion on merits of the matter.

                          Sd/-                                           Sd/-

                 (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                              (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                       Judge                                            Judge




Nikita