Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
MANOJ SEVANI – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1655 OF 2019
With
MANOJ YADAV ETC. – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1656-1657 OF OF 2019
WITH
MANOHAR BALMIKI – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1658 OF 2019
AND
MANI YADAV & ANOTHER ETC. – Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.726-728 OF 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149 – Murder, attempt to murder and hurt – Common object of unlawful assembly – Conviction and sentence – Reporting which led to registration of First Information Report was against four named persons only – Informant attributed clear and overt acts to two of named persons from First Information Report – Accused No.1 gave fatal blow on chest of deceased as well as dealt blows on injured witnesses – Apart from accused No.1, three accused, accused No.2, accused No.3 and accused No.4 gave Patta blows on head of deceased – Deceased died as a result of injuries suffered on head and in chest – Except these four accused, none of other accused was stated to have given any blow to deceased but accused No.5 had facilitated blow by accused No.1 by holding the witness – Since participation and acts committed by accused No.1 to accused No.4 are clearly spelt out and stand proved from record, conviction of said accused Nos.1 to 4 converted from Sections 302/149 IPC to Sections 302/34 IPC – Similarly, their conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC also converted to one under Sections 307/34 IPC – Appeals preferred by accused No.1, accused No.2, accused No.3 and accused No.4 dismissed but appeals preferred by accused/appellants allowed. (Paras 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
By its judgment and order dated 04.09.2012, trial Court convicted and sentenced all the twelve accused persons under Sections 302/149 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life; under Sections 307/149 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years; and, under Sections 324/149 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, with imposition of fine and sentences in default. These criminal appeals by eight convicted accused/appellants are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeals.
Finding of Court:
Except accused No.1 Dinesh Rawani, accused No.2 Brijesh Sonkar, accused No.3 Mani Yadav and accused No.4 Parmesh Thakur, rest of the accused persons, namely, Sayyed Javed, Manoj Sevani, Manoj Yadav and Manohar Balmiki are also entitled to the benefit of doubt and are thus acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These criminal appeals by eight convicted accused/appellants are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos.830, 832, 833, 835, 836, 837, 843, 844 and 914 of 2012.
2. Twelve persons were tried in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and Section 25(1B) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. By its judgment and order dated 04.09.2012, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the twelve accused persons under Sections 302/149 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life; under Sections 307/149 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years; and, under Sections 324/149 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, with imposition of fine and sentences in default.
Apart from the above convictions, accused No.1 Dinesh Rawani was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 25(1B) read with Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. The genesis of the prosecution was in the reporting made by one Shailendra Kumar Dhruv (who was later examined as PW2 in the trial), on the basis of which FIR No.247 of 2009 dated 19.08.2009 was registered with Police Station City Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302/307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
5. The First Information Report named four persons, namely, Dinesh Rawani, Brijesh Sonkar, Mani Yadav and Parmesh alias Pammi Thakur while others were not named. The basic allegations in the First Information Report were as under:-
6. Durgesh Mahant having succumbed to his injuries, postmortem on his body was conducted by Dr. A.K. Verma (later examined as PW9 in the trial), who found injuries in the head and piercing injury of 3 x ½ c.m. on the left side of the chest.
The injured Natwar Soni was given medical attention by Dr.
Conviction and sentence must be commensurate with degree of complicity of accused persons.
For a murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal, which involves establishing the causal connection to the accused, a requirement not met in th....
Conviction requires overt acts attributed to accused; acquittals followed evidentiary insufficiencies while some convictions were altered from section 149 to 34 due to lack of proof of unlawful assem....
Murder - Conviction - Appellatn murdered deceased with a deadly weapon i.e. countrymade pistol, which was his individual act and he is responsible for the same, hence, he is convicted for the offence....
Conviction modified - Offence of Murder - Injured witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had received injuries of blunt object, which were caused by accused-appellants with Lathis and Dandas but injuries w....
Murder and rioting – Sans unlawful assembly case of each accused has to be considered according to his individual act.
The court applied exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC to determine the appropriate charges and convictions based on the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Conviction under severe charges was overturned due to lack of evidence supporting unlawful assembly; appellants found guilty of lesser offences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
