Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
Horidas Sahu, S/o. Bhakturam Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.]
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved; both these appeals are clubbed together being arising out of a common judgment dated 16.01.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2011 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mohit Ram and 04 others), by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, same are analogously heard and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 89 /201 3 has been filed by the accused-appellant, namely, Horidas Sahu (A-5) under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2013, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s. 376 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 03 months. |
3. Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2013 has been filed by the accused-appellants, namely, Mohit Ram (A-1), Khuman Das (A-2), Bhukhan Das (A- 3) and
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to extent to which it supports prosecution version evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off record.
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.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
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
