Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, JJ.
Smt. Mamta Manhare, W/o Tejram Manhare – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2015
Decided on : 13-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the case and accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments by appellants and state counsel. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's critical consideration of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. analysis of circumstantial evidence requirements. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. importance of section 27 of the evidence act. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. usage of confession under section 30 of the iea. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. court's interpretation of circumstantial evidence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. importance of establishing intent in section 201 ipc. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 9. court's findings on the reliability of evidence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. consideration of conviction under section 201 ipc. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 11. the relationship between co-accused confessions. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 12. final judgement and acquittal of both appellants. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) of CrPC, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.7.2015 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.68/2014, by which the appellant No.1 Smt. Mamta Manhare and her father appellant No.2 Santu Banjare both have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Appellant No.1 - Mamta Manhare Under Section 302 of IPC | R.I. for Life with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| Appellant No.2 - Santu Banjare Under Section 201 of IPC | R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months. |
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25.11.2013 at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening at Village Bhansoj under Police Station Arang, appellant No.1 Mamta Manhare is said to have assaulted her sister-in-law Mamta Banjare to death by axe (tangi) and thereafter, knowing fully well that the offence of murder has committed by the appellant No.1 Mamta Manhare, her father appellant No.2 Santu Banjare is said to have thrown the said axe in the nearby tank in order to screen themselves from the legal punishment and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
3. It is an admitted position that the marriage of Smt. Mamta Banjare (now deceased) was solemnized with Vedram, the son of appellant No.2, and the appellant No.1 is the daughter of appellant No.2 and that, on account of some dispute with her husband, the appellant No.1 was at that time residing at her parental house.
4. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 25.11.2013 at about 7:30 p.m., Smt. Sonseer Banjare lodged a Dehati Nalishi at Police Station Arang alleging that on 25.11.2013 in the morning she had gone to the field for harvesting crops and at that time her husband (appellant No.2), son Vedram, daughter Mamta Manhare (appellant No.1) and her daughter-in-law Mamta Banjare (deceased) all were at the house. In the evening, when she came back, her daughter (appellant No.1) informed her that Mamta Banjare (deceased) is not getting up for cooking dinner and then she went inside the room of Mamta Banjare and found her lying dead in the bed. She immediately informed her daughter (appellant No.1) and mother-in-law Pancho Bai that Mamta Banjare has been murdered and at that time her husband (appellant no.2) had also come back, who then informed the neighbours about the murder of their daughter-in-law Mamta Banjare. On the basis of the said information, Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-24) was registered against unknown person.
5. Subsequently, the memorandum statements of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 were recorded vide Exhibit P-1 and Exhibit P-2, respectively. Pursuant to the memorandum st
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused to establish the offence under Section....
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....
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
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
