Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Ku. Saraswati Yadu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since both the above criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 28-4-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Trial No.H-21/2016 and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These two criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing them as under: -
| Saraswati (A-1) | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default additional rigorous imprisonment for six months |
| Ghanaram @ Julwa (A-2) | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Section 302 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default additional rigorous imprisonment for six months |
3. Appellant in Cr.A.No.706/2018 namely, Ku. Saraswati Yadu (A-1) and appellant in Cr.A.No.752/2018 namely, Ghanaram @ Julwa
There is no legal impediment for convicting a person on sole testimony of eye-witness, but if there is doubt about testimony, Court will insist on corroboration.
Merely because motive is established, solely on that basis accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC.
Eyewitness testimony from relatives, if corroborated by physical evidence, can be deemed reliable regardless of familial interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The court established that a common intention among co-accused can lead to joint liability for murder, even if not all participants inflicted the fatal blow, provided their actions collectively demon....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
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
