Chattisgarh High Court
Jagdish Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 January, 2025
1/6
MANPREET
KAUR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2025.01.31
CRA No. 733 of 2023
10:42:24 +0530
Jagdish Singh Thakur S/o Jayendre Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o
Mureyapara Narayanpur, P.S. And District Narayanpur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur, District
Narayanpur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
Order Sheet
30.01.2025 By the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08.02.2023, the learned
Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon
(C.G.) in Sesssion Trial No. 129 of 2021 has
convicted and sentenced the appellant in the
following manner :
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 302 of the Imprisonment for Life & fine of
Indian Penal Code Rs.100/-, in default of payment
of fine, Additional rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai,
learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State/respondent on the instant application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail (I.A. No. 1
of 2023).
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued
that the learned trial Court committed error by
holding that the appellant committed offence defined
under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also
committed error by holding that the prosecution is
able to prove the guilty of the offence beyond doubt.
There are no direct evidence in this case against the
appellant, therefore the appellant must be acquitted
from the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal
Code. The applicant has been falsely implicated in
this case and no prima facie case has been made
out against him and there are no any eyes
witnesses. The finding of learned trial Court is
perverse and contrary to the material available on
record. The impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 08/02/2023 passed by the learned
trial Court is bad in law and facts. Perusal of the
postmortem report of the deceased shows that the
deceased received ante-mortem injuries on his non-
vital part of the body. It is further submitted that no
incriminating article has been recovered from the
possession of the present appellant. Further, the
prosecution has not proved any legal fault against
the present appellant and thus the sentence &
punishment given to the present appellant must be
set aside in the in interest of justice. The trial Court
has not considered the statement of the witness &
the statement recorded during cross- examination.
He further submits that even if the case is taken at
the face value, the case would not travel beyond
Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, hence, the conviction
under Section 302 of the IPC is unsustainable in the
eyes of law. The appellant is in jail since 02.09.2021
and he also argued that the appeal is likely to take a
couple of years or even more in its final disposal,
hence he prays that the appellant be enlarged on
bail.
However, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer
for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the documents appended with the bail
application.
Taking into account the fact that some dispute
arose between the appellant and his parents, and the
deceased tried to intervene in quarrel which was taking
place between them and further, in the event of series
going on, the appellant herein assaulted the deceased
with stick, but considering the nature of injury as per
postmortem report and the fact that appellant is in jail
since 02.09.2021 and has already suffered agony of
criminal trial and jail sentence for a period of more than
three years and hearing of this appeal would take
prolonged period of time, we deem it appropriate to
allow the application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant.
Accordingly, the substantive jail sentence
awarded to appellant by the learned trial Court is
hereby suspended. He shall be released on bail on his
executing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five
Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on
28.04.2025. He 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 as are given to him
by the said Court, interval being not less than 6
months, till final disposal of this appeal.
Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 filed is allowed.
It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are only confined for disposal of aforesaid
I.A. filed in this appeal and it shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of
the matter.
List this matter for final hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
