Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 107 (CHH)

BALRAM SAO @ PINGWA SAO v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-03-14

RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2013
ORDER Heard on I.A. No. 01/2012. This is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the Appellant. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of R.I. for 6 months. Deceased - Bhagyalata Verma was aged about 44 years. She was residing all alone in a separate house which was situated near the house of the Appellant. She was not seen since 01.12.2011. On 07.12.2011, neighbours of the Deceased found that bad smell was coming out from her house. The house was locked from outside. The lock was broken and door was opened. They found that the Deceased was lying dead in her house. She had sustained multiple serious injuries. There was no eye-witness to the incident. On 18.12.2011, the Appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.-P-9) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a knife, some clothes and a key allegedly said to be the key of the house of the Deceased was seized. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examinations to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur and a report was received." According to the FSL report, blood stains were found on the knife and clothes, however, no report could be filed as to whether the stains were of human blood or not. There is also no report to show that the above blood stains were matching with the blood stains of the Deceased. Though, it is claimed that a Panchnama was prepared in presence of Haresh Kumar (PW-2) and Anil Verma (PW-4) to show that by the seized key the lock of the house, already seized by the police, was opened and the said key was of that lock, but the Panchnama was not proved on record. Even the two witnesses of Panchnama did not depose about the said demonstration allegedly made by the police. These are the only circumstances, on which, the Sessions Judge has recorded the conviction of the Appellant. Mr. Pandey has argued that the above circumstances were not fully established, they were not of conclusive nature and tendency and all the circumstances were capable of being explained, therefore, conviction appears to be bad in law. These are the only circumstances, on which, the Sessions Judge has recorded the conviction of the Appellant. Mr. Pandey has argued that the above circumstances were not fully established, they were not of conclusive nature and tendency and all the circumstances were capable of being explained, therefore, conviction appears to be bad in law. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 01/2013 is allowed and it is directed that the substantive jail sentence imposed against the Appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and the Appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rupees 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5th of August, 2013. Thereafter, the Appellant would not be required to appear either before the Registry or before the Trial Court or the High Court unless so directed in that behalf. Certified copy as per rules. Application Allowed.