Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh @ Chotkaila Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 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 : 29-07-2025
Shri Shivam Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Manasmani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on I.A.No.17265 of 2025 , which is repeat (Second) application
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 1 Dinesh @
Chotkalia Sahu, appellant No. 2 Rambhajan Sahu and appellant No.3
Ramkaran @ Bangali Sahu. First application for suspension of sentence was
dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.9.2022 in I.A. No. 12541 of 2022.
This appeal is filed by appellants 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
2 CRA-6202-2022
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 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 Ramvaran Sahu is granted
suspension of sentence vide order dated 08.07.2025 in I.A. No. 30968 of
2024.
Shri Manasmani Verma, learned Government Advocate 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
3 CRA-6202-2022
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.
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.
4 CRA-6202-2022
Earlier bail application of the appellants was dismissed only on the
ground that period of incarceration was two months that, we are of the
opinion that, that ground being not touching the merits but only the
discretion will not come int he way of deciding the second application.
Therefore, 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. 1 Dinesh @ Chotkalia Sahu, appellant No. 2 Rambhajan Sahu
and appellant No.3 Ramkaran @ Bangali Sahu and release them on bail.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 17265 of 2025 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 each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for their 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. 1 to 3
namely Dinesh @ Chotkalia Sahu, Rambhajan Sahu and Ramkaran @
Bangali 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
AR
5 CRA-6202-2022
