IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India]

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No._______ OF 2018

(Arising out of the Judgement and Final Order dated 08.03.2013
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur in
Criminal Appeal No.476 of 2007)

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

BETWEEN:
1. Krishna Sahu, s/o. Khorbehra Sahu.
2. Prakash, s/o. Radhe Sahu.
3. Manohar, s/o. Khorbehra Sahu.
4. Radheshyam, s/o. Parsan Sahu.
5. Ram Kumar, s/o. Radhe Sahu.
6. Lala Ram, s/o. Sukhiram Sahu.
7. Hariram s/o. Jhaduram Sahu.
8. Annu Sahu s/o. Manohar Sahu.
All R/o Village Fandwani, P.S Mungeli, Dist. Bilaspur (CG)

AND
The Sate of Chhattisgarh
Rep. by

TO
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED
PETITIONERS
 1. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

The aforementioned petitioners most respectfully submit the present Special

Leave Petition against the Judgement and Final Order 08-03-2013 dated passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 476
of 2007 by which the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioners herein.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:-
That the substantial questions of law of utmost importance arising out of the present
case are as under:-
A. Whether the High Court is right in law in dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by
the petitioners.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2(2):

That the petitioners have not filed any petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal
filed against Judgment and Final order dated 08-03-2013 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2007.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4:

That the annexure(s) P-1 produced with the Special Leave Petition are true copies
of the pleading/documents which formed part from the record of the case in the
courts below against which order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:-
Leave to Appeal is sought on the following amongst other grounds without
prejudice to one another:-

A. That the courts below ought to have acquitted the accused because reliance
has been placed solely on the eye-witness account of Sundari Bai (PW/2) and
Hemant (PW/3) and no other witnesses or evidence have been given due
consideration while convicting.

B. That the High Court ought to have acquitted the accused because the eye-
witnesses Sundari Bai and Hemant (PW2 and PW3) were interested parties
being the mother and brother of the deceased and their evidence is shaky and
biased with a motive to falsely implicate the accused because compensation of
38,000/- was not paid by Krishna Sahu (A-1) for the canal.
 C. That the High Court failed to appreciate the FSL Report where it stated that
although bloodstains were found on all the articles seized but there was none
on the plain soil seized from the place of occurrence.

D. That the High Court failed to consider that of all the accused, only two were
holding tabbal and tangia and the rest were allegedly holding lathis but only
two injuries were caused due to the lathis, therefore, participation of the
persons who were allegedly holding the lathis is doubtful and hence,
conviction cannot be sustained.

E. That the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that Sundari Bai had not
taken the name of Annu (A-8) in her court evidence, therefore, presence and
participation of Annu (A-8) is doubtful and thus, conviction cannot be
sustained.

F. That the High Court failed to consider the admission made by Sundari Bai
(PW-2) in the cross examination in Para 37 that at the time of incident, she
saw many people coming from the fields after attending the call of the nature
but she did not know the name of any person.

G. That the High Court failed to consider the admission of Hemant Kumar (PW-
3) in the cross examination in Para 17 that he did not know all the people of
the village Fundvani by their faces and that he did not know in whose fields
his brother and mother met him because he did not usually visit the fields.

H. That the High Court failed to consider the legal point established in Govind v.
State of M.P 2006 (2) CGLJ 10 that if any person has died due to a sudden
dispute, it does not become clear from the matter that out of the 10-12
accused, who caused the grievous injury and that all the accused cannot be
held guilty.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(a) It is submitted that the learned judges considered the evidence of the prosecution
and found the petitioners guilty with the following sentences:
1. U/S 148 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment to each accused,
2. U/S 302 IPC, life imprisonment to each accused with Rs.500 as fine to each
accused. In case of non-payment of the fine, they have to face an extra year of
Rigorous Imprisonment.
3. U/S 335/149 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment to each accused with
Rs.300/- fine to each accused. In case of non-payment of the fine, they have to
face extra 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment.
 It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case. It is
respectfully submitted that there have been no previous convictions against the
petitioners.

(b) It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners have complete hope of success in
this Hon’ble court and that this is a fit case in which the Hon’ble court would be
pleased to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously
be pleased to:

(a) Grant special leave to appeal to the Petitioner against the Judgement and Final
Order dated 08.03.20133 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.476/2007;
and/or
(b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. INTERIM RELIEF:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously
be pleased to:
A) Grant bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the present Special Leave
Petition to the satisfaction of the Court of Special Judge Exercising the
Powers Under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity)
Act 1989, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh;
and/or
B) Pass any such further order or orders as may be deemed fit on the basis of the
facts and circumstances thereof.

DRAWN AND FILED BY

[S. USHA REDDY]

Advocate for the Petitioners

FILED ON: 19.11.2018