Vijay Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2539 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Vijay Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2025

                                                              1




                                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
             Digitally signed
         by GOURI
GOURI    MUDALIAR
MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.22
             16:23:37 +0530                          CRA No. 491 of 2025


                     1          -   Vijay   Singh   S/o   Budhram    Aged   About   45   Years,


                     2 - Gopal Singh Painkra S/o Budhram Painkra Aged About 32 Years,


                     3 - Govardhan Singh Painkra S/o Sipahi Singh Painkra Aged About
                     35 Years,


                     4 - Pritam Kumar S/o Jaylal Painkra Aged About 22 Years,
                       R/o Village- Taraju, P.S.- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                ...Appellants


                                                            versus


                     State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police
                     Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh


                                                                            ... Respondent

Order Sheet

20/03/2025 Shri Aditya Kumar Mishra, counsel for the appellants.

Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, PL for the State. Shri Pushkar Sinha, counsel for the objector. Heard.

Admit.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) in Sessions Case No.37/2024 as under:

             Conviction                          Sentence
             U/s 436 r/w 34 of       7 years simple imprisonment and
             IPC.                    Rs.1000/-    fine,   in   default    of
                                     payment of fine, to undergo 1
                                     month        additional       simple
                                     imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction of the appellants is based on the sole testimony of witness Devkumar Singh. He would submit that the allegation against the appellants is that they have burnt the house of the complainant. He would submit the seizure

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that only Devkumar has supported the case of the prosecution as there was enmity between the accused persons and Devkumar. He would submit that only cloth tent (tripal), paddy and house hold articles were burnt and damage was of Rs.15000/- only. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the objector opposes the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Considering the nature of allegation and gravity of offence that the appellants have burnt the house of complainant whereby huge loss was caused to the complainant, I am not inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is rejected.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

gouri