Jitendra Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 487 Chatt

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               Order Sheet
                           CRA No. 738 of 2022

Jitendra Kumar Sahu, S/o. Meghuram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Village
Nikum, Polices Station Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o, Rasmada,
Chowki-Anjora, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Appellant
                                    Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---- Respondent

Division Bench :-

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

24.01.2023 Mr. B.P.Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Somya Rai, Panel Lawyer for the State.

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

and grant of bail.

The appellant stands convicted by the judgment dated

19.04.2022 passed by the learned Court below in Sessions

Trial No.153/2019 for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

(double) and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.500/- (double) with usual default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no

evidence against the appellant for convicting him under Section

302 of Indian Penal Code and there is no certificate under

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that seizure on memorandum statement of the appellant has also not

been proved of the alleged weapon of offence and no human

blood has been found on said weapon. Impugned conviction is

based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, in light of the

decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Balwan Singh

v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781, Arjun Panditrao

Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) 7

SCC 1 and Satye Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand

(2022) 5 SCC 438, the appellant is entitled to be released on

bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that it is a case

of double murder and considering the circumstantial evidence

available on record, it is not a case to which the appellant

should be released on bail. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in

the matter of Ramji Prasad v. Ruttan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr.

(2002) 9 SCC 366, has held that in cases involving conviction

under Section 302 of I.P.C. it is only in exceptional cases that

the benefit of suspension of sentence should be granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went

through the records with utmost circumspection.

It is a case of double murder and it is case of the

prosecution that on 17.06.2019 in the afternoon 2:00 to 3:00

p.m., the appellant assaulted to his wife Premin Bai and one Rameshwar Sahu by the wooden part of Axe, by which, they

suffered grievous injuries and died. Pursuant to the

memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of the

offence has been seized and death of two persons is held to be

homicidal in nature. In the FSL, bloodstain was found in the

weapon of offence being Article 'B' & 'E' and also in the clothes

of the deceased Premin Bai and Rameshwar human blood has

been found. Therefore, it is not an exceptional case in which

the appellant deserves to be granted bail. Accordingly, I.A.No.1

is rejected.

               Sd/-                               Sd/-
        (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                (Radhakishan Agrawal)
              Judge                              Judge




Ashok