Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh @ Chotkaila Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-6202-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 6202 of 2022
(DINESH @ CHOTKAILA SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 08-07-2025
Shri Shivam Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Yash Soni - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.30968/2024, which is fourth application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.4/Ramvaran Sahu. First was dismissed on
merits vide order dated 20.9.2022. Second and third were dismissed as withdrawn.
This appeal is filed by appellant No.4 being aggrieved of judgment dated
06.07.2022 passed in S.T.No.164/2018 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sidhi
whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulations.
It is submitted that on merits it is an admitted fact that Abhimanyu Sahu (PW.6)
had given intimation to PW.2 (Pradeep Kumar Sahu) & PW.3 (Sandeep Sahu) whereas
Abhimanyu Sahu (PW.6) so also PW.5-Munni Sahu have categorically stated that
deceased-Jhalla had given an oral dying declaration taking the names of present
appellants.
It is submitted that in view of testimony of PW.6-Abhimanyu, it is evident that
one of the family members of the deceased had reached the spot when incident took
place. In fact, when even Abhimanyu, who was amongst the first persons to reach the
place of incident, none of the accused persons were seen at the place of incident. The
conviction is based only on the ground of oral dying declaration given by Jhalla.
Reading from the evidence of PW.9-Dr.Avnish Kumar Paney, it is submitted that this
witness has admitted that looking to the nature of injuries which were caused to Jhalla,
he would have become unconscious immediately and would not have been in a
2 CRA-6202-2022
position to speak. Thus, it is pointed out that so called oral dying declaration is not
corroborated.
It is also submitted that appellant No.4 is in custody for more than 07 years and
there are good chances of success. About three years' time has lapsed when earlier
application was dismissed on merits.
Shri Yash Soni, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, in his turn,
submits that firstly there is evidence of oral dying declaration given by deceased-
Jhalla to PW.5 & PW.6 and secondly the FSL report points out that except on 'Tangi'
which was recovered from appellant/Ramvaran Sahu, two lathis' and a rod contained
blood stains. However, he admits that no human blood could be found on the ' lathis' as
it was inconclusive because of dis-integration of the sample.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, oral
dying declaration needs to be reinforced through other circumstantial evidence. Glaring
omission in the evidence is that PW.6-Abhimanyu after having stated that deceased
had given an oral dying declaration, they had dialed 100, admits in paragraph 2 that
when Jhalla was narrating his story, after sometime he had gone silent. This is a glaring
omission in the evidence of PW.6-Abhimanyu, though he has shown presence of
Shyamlal Sahu, Thakurdeen Sahu and Munni Sahu but only Munni Sahu has been
examined and other two witnesses have not been examined. In paragraph 8 Munni
Sahu (PW.5) admits that she was woken up by Abhimanyu at 2.00 am. She does not
remember names of the children who were present at the place of the incident. They
had reached the place of incident at 2.30 am. Thus, the time lag between the incident
actually taking place and when PW.6-Abhimanyu heard cries of deceased-Jhalla and
PW.5-Munni reached the place of incident, is about half an hour. PW.5-Munni Sahu in
paragraph 8 of her cross-examination admits that when she had reached the place of
incident then nobody was present and after 10-15 minutes wife and children of
deceased-Jhalla had reached the place of incident.
3 CRA-6202-2022
When evidence of PW.6-Abhimanyu is taken into consideration that Jhalla had
gone silent after speaking few sentences and PW.9-Dr.Avinish Kumar Pandey suggests
that with the kind of injuries which were sustained by Jhalla, he would not have been in
a position to speak, which is again corroborated by PW.6-Abhimanyu that after
speaking few sentences, Jhalla had become unconscious, we are of the view that
looking to the time lag between the period when incident had taken place at around
2.00 am and the time when Abhimanyu and Munni reached the spot at about 2.30 am,
when evidence of PW.9 is taken into consideration, then there are good chances of
success in appeal, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the remaining part of jail sentence of appellant
No.4-Ramvaran Sahu and release him on bail.
Accordingly, I.A.No.30968/2024 is allowed.
It is directed that on depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited and on
furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the trial Court 08.10.2025 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
concerned Court, the execution of remaining part of the jail sentence of appellant No.4-
Ramvaran Sahu shall remain suspended and he be released on bail fill final disposal of
this appeal.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
