Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 294 (CHH)

DURGA PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-10-14

D.R.DESHMUKH, DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2008
ORDER Heard on LA. No.1, application for suspension of sentences and grant of bail to the appellants. The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 452 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of the LP.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, and to undergo R.L for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and to undergo R.L for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, respectively, for causing homicidal death of deceased Shiv Bhagas. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that apart from the appellants, 14 other accused persons were prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. However, 13 accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court and only accused Puran and the present appellants have been convicted. He further submitted that bail application of appellant Puran has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 1-8-2005 passed in Cr.A. No. 458/2005. He further submitted that conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of complainant PW-l Vishambhar and alleged eyewitnesses namely, PW -3 Savitri and PW -25 Mohitram. Referring to paragraph-II of the evidence of Vishambhar, it was argued that he had not seen the incident and he was not eyewitness. Further referring to the evidence of Savitri, it was argued that cause of death of the deceased was head injury and from perusal of para-l of the evidence of Savitri, it would be evident that when the deceased returned to home he had sustained injuries over his head. PW -25 Mohitram has also not attributed any assault by the present appellants on the person of the deceased whereas, PW -15 Pitambar has resiled from his diary statement and he has byen declared hostile. On the other hand, learned cotu1Sel for the State opposed the bail application. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing evidence of injured eyewitnesses Visharnbhar, Savitri and Mohitrarn and further considering that appellant Puran has already been granted bail by this Court, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to admit the accused/appellants to bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Execution of the sentences imposed on appellants namely, Durga Prasad Yadav and Nathu Ram Yadav shall remain suspended and they are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19th December, 2008. They shall thereafter appear before the 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 them by the said Court, till the disposal of this appeal. Bail Granted.