IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
State of Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Jain S/o Late Rawalmal Jain – Respondent
CRREF No. 1 of 2023, CRA Nos. 272, 507 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, J.
1. Criminal appeal No. 507/2023 has been preferred by the appellant/accused Sandeep Jain against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of Sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions trial No. 56/2018 dated 23-01-2023, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence | Default stipulation |
| Section 302 of the IPC (Twice) | Death sentence and fine of 1,000/- (Two Rs. counts). He be hanged by the neck till he died | Additional RI for 6 months |
| 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act | RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- | Additional RI for 6 months |
| 27(2) of the Arms Act | RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- | Additional RI for 6 months |
1.1 Criminal appeal No. 272/2023 has been preferred by the appellant/accused Bhagat Singh Gurudutta and Shailendra Sagar against the above judgment, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence | Default stipulation |
| 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act | RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- | Additional RI for 6 months |
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg under the provisions of Section 366(1) of the Cr.P.C. after passing the sentence of death to Accused Sandeep Jain, submitted the proceedings to this Court for its confirmation and this is how this death reference No. 1/2023 is before us for consideration.
PROSECUTION STORY
3. The prosecution story in brief is as follows:
3.2 During the investigation, videography and photography of the residence of the deceased was done. During the inspection of the spot, empty bullet shells, cotton and blood soaked cotton found around the dead bodies of the deceased Surji Bai and Rawalmal Jain were seized in front of the witnesses. The seized material was sealed on the spot. One Blood stained bullet, two empty ca
Ashrafi Lal and Sons vs. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 1721
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari vs. State of Maharashtra
Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Gurvail Singh vs. State of Punjab
Jai Kumar vs. State of M.P. (1999) 5 SCC 1
Kamleshwar Paswan vs. U.T. Chandigarh
Kehar Singh and Others vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab
Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra
Manoj and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mohd. Mannan vs. State of Bihar
Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar
Panchhi and Others vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177
Ramesh Kumar alias Rameshwar vs. State
Ramnaresh and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Gujarat vs. Mohd. Atik
Sardul Singh vs. State of Bombay
Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 357
Sonu Sardar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India
Sunder Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal
Sunil Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra
State of W.B. vs. Mir Mohammad Omar
State of Gujarat vs. Anirudhsing and Another
State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh
Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer
Subhash Ramkumar Bind @ Vakil vs. State of Maharashtra
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
Offence of Murder – Death Sentence Confirmed - Imposition of death sentence in ‘rarest of rare’ cases - Instant case falls in category of 'rarest of rare case', warranting capital punishment. Hence d....
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
(1) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a c....
The court ruled that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing the need for considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused, leading to a modification of the sentenc....
The court redefined the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of mitigating factors, emphasizing the need to consider a defendant's mental state and family circumstances.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
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.