Chattisgarh High Court
Sonu Rao @ Sonu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 January, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 324 of 2024
1 - Sonu Rao @ Sonu S/o Babu Rao Aged About 22 Years R/o Camp-2,
Shyam Nagar, In Front of Giri Babu House Ward No. 22 Thana- Chhawani
Dist.- Durg, C.G.
2 - Yashwant @ Lala Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Camp-2, Shyam
Nagar, In Front Of Giri Babu House Ward No. 22 Thana- Chhawani, Distt.-
Durg, C.G.
... Appellants
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.-
Chhawani, Distt.- Durg, C.G.
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
09/01/2025 Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate for the Appellants.
Shri MK Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard on IA No.01/2024 which is an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.
By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 20.10.2023, the 8th Additional Sessions Judge
Durg in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2020 has convicted the
appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 294,
452, 302 and 323 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo RI for
1 month and fine of Rs.100/-, RI for 3 years and fine of
Rs.500/-, RI for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and RI
for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default
stipulation.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
both the appellants were highly intoxicated. Dispute between
the parties arose on a trivial issue of asking Bidi from the
deceased by the appellants. On his refusal, some altercation
took place and on sudden provocation and heat of passion,
the appellant No.1 assaulted the deceased from iron rod
whereas, the appellant No.2 assaulted him from a piece of
stone, on account of which the deceased received head injury
and accordingly died. There was no motive to commit murder
of the deceased. There is no independent witness. There are
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of complainant
PW-1. PW-2 & PW-4 are the interested witness and therefore
their statements are not fully reliable. He would further submit
that even if the entire case of prosecution is taken on its face
value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 of IPC.
The appellants are in jail since 16.05.2020. The appeal is
likely to take a couple of years or even more in its final
disposal, hence he prays that the appellants may be enlarged
on bail.
However, learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for grant of bail. He would submit that there are two
injured witness and three eyewitnesses to the incident. Motive
need not be proved in a case of sudden provocation. There
cannot be any hard and fast rule that evidence of interested
witnesses cannot be taken into consideration. Further, there
are two criminal antecedents against the appellant No.1
whereas, six criminal antecedents against the appellant No.2
of the year 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2020. Therefore, the
appellants are not entitled for bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents annexed with the bail application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case;
the fact that there is no independent eyewitness; the
prosecution has failed to prove motive to commit murder of the
deceased; it appears that dispute arose on account of trivial
issue and in the heat of passion and sudden provocation the
appellants assaulted the deceased with iron rod and a piece
of stone which were lying on the spot; they were not armed
with any weapon of assault; even if the entire case is taken on
its face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304
of the IPC; appellants are in jail since 16.05.2020 and final
hearing of this appeal will take its own time, we deem it
appropriate to allow the application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellants.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence awarded to
appellants by the learned trial Court is hereby suspended.
They shall be released on bail on their executing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance
before Registry of this Court on 24.02.2025. They shall
thereafter appear before the concerned trial Court on a date to
be given by the Registry of this Court and shall continue to
appear there on all such subsequent dates given to them by
the said Court, interval being not less than 6 months, till final
disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, IA No. 1 of 2024 is allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove
are only confined for disposal of IA filed in this appeal and it
shall not be construed as an expression or opinion of this
Court on the merits of the matter.
List this appeal for final hearing after four months.
C.C. as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Inder
