SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, SANJAY S.AGRAWAL
Jamuna Bai, W/o Narendra Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
| 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 Additiona
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
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.