IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Jamuna Bai, W/o Narendra Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1143, 1160, 1202 of 2014
Decided on : 13-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of appellants and preliminary details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details about evidence and investigation results. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by the appellants' counsel. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. prosecution's counterarguments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. questions of whether deaths were homicides. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. evaluation of motive in the crime. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. validity of confessions as evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 9. the principle surrounding the use of confessions under section 30 of the evidence act. (Para 39 , 41 , 44) |
| 10. final judgments and their implications. (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Two appellants namely, Jamuna Bai (A-1) & Shyam Sunder (A-2) in Cr.A.No.1202/2014; sole appellant namely, Surendra Kumar (A-3) in Cr.A.No.1160/2014; and two appellants namely, Sahaniram (A-4) & Dadhibal (A-5) in Cr.A.No.1143/2014, have preferred these appeals under Section 3 74(2) of the CrPC feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 7-11-2014 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.80/2013, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner: -
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Section 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, additional RI for two years |
| Section 460 of the IPC | RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, additional RI for two years |
| Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (two counts) | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, additional RI for two years |
2. Since all the three criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 7-11-2014 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in one Sessions Trial No.80/2013 and since common question of fact and law is involved in all the three appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. It is admitted fact on record that Sushil Chand Jaiswal had two daughters namely, Jamuna Bai – the accused/appellant (A-1) and Namrata Jaiswal – deceased. Jamuna Bai was married to Narendra Kumar (PW-7) and Namrata was married to Shyam Kumar – another deceased. The family of Jamuna Bai was staying in the house owned by Sushil Chand Jaiswal at Sakti in ground floor and Namrata Jaiswal along with her husband Shyam Kumar on the fateful day was residing in second floor along with her family. It is the case of the prosecution that Jamuna Bai wanted to grab the entire property in which her sister Namrata Jaiswal along with her husband were staying. Revenue proceedings Exs.P-30 to P-44 were initiated by Namrata Jaiswal against Narendra Kumar (PW-7) – husband of Jamuna Bai before the revenue court (Tahsildar, Kharsia and Tahsildar, Sakti) for partition, etc.. It is the further case of the prosecution that Jamuna Bai (A-1) also lodged complaint before Police Station Kharsia against the deceased persons vide Ex.P-20 and in light of that complaint, statements were recorded vide Exs.P-21 to P-24. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10-4-2013, in the morning, one Onkar Prasad Jaiswal (neither cited nor examined) informed Shivkumar (PW6) – brother of deceased Shyam Kumar about the incident, thereafter, Shivkumar (PW-6) came to Sakti in the house of Namrata Jaiswal & Shyam Kumar and noticed that throat of both Namrata & Shyam Kumar was cut and they were lying dead on bed and blood spread all over the floor. Thereafter, Shivkumar (PW-6) lodged first information report Ex.P-15 at Police Station Sakti on 10-4-2013 against unknown person and on the same day, morgue intimations were got registered by Shivkumar (PW-6). Morgue intimation Ex.P-16 was regist
Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P.
Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh and others
Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another
Debapriya Pal v. State of Best Bengal
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and another
Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Lakshmi and others v. State of U.P.
Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
State of Rajasthan v. Ramanand
Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253
Sunil Rai alias Paua and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
Sonvir alias Somvir v. State of NCT of Delhi
Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab
AI
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
In order to convict an accused under Section 302 of IPC, first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is homicidal death.
In criminal law, accomplice testimonies must be corroborated by independent evidence for conviction; mere witness hostility does not invalidate supportive testimony.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.