Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
V.K. Pandey, son of Late Shri N.P. Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State, through Central Bureau of Investigations, NMDC Rest House, Civil Lines, Raipur – Respondent
CRA No. 426 of 2007, CRA No. 427 of 2007, CRA No. 425 of 2007, CRA No. 428 of 2007, CRA No. 432 of 2007, CRA No. 438 of 2007, CRA No. 466 of 2007, CRA No. 488 of 2007, CRA No. 491 of 2007, CRA No. 534 of 2007, CRA No. 535 of 2007, CRA No. 536 of 2007, CRA No. 537 of 2007, CRA No. 538 of 2007, CRA No. 539 of 2007, CRA No. 553 of 2007, CRA No. 616 of 2007, CRA No. 656 of 2007, CRA No. 703 of 2007, CRA No. 735 of 2007, CRA No. 922 of 2007, CRA No. 966 of 2007.
Decided On : 04-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. convictions and sentences of appellants detailed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of investigation and evidence collected. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of allegations and charges against the appellants are summarized. (Para 7) |
| 4. the judgment discusses the role of circumstantial evidence in establishing a conspiracy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. arguments related to the conduct of cbi investigation. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. the rationale for upholding convictions based on the collected evidence is elaborated. (Para 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. final conclusions emphasize the dismissal of appeals and reaffirming the lower court's decision. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. witness testimony discrepancies highlighted. (Para 28 , 29 , 34) |
| 9. conspiracy and circumstantial evidence in criminal law. (Para 131 , 140 , 141) |
| 10. affirmation of convictions based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 144 , 146) |
| 11. final judgment dismissing appeals. (Para 147 , 148) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. The appellants have filed these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2005 by which the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur, District Raipur, has convicted the appellants and sentenced as under:
| CONVICTION UNDER SECTION | : | SENTENCE |
| Appellant-Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal, Feroz Sidhiquie | ||
| 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, the IPC) | : | Life imprisonment with fine of 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 moths rigorous imprisonment more. |
| 120-B of the IPC | : | Life imprisonment with fine of 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, 6 moths rigorous imprisonment more. |
| Appellant-Shivendra Singh Parihar, Vinod Singh Rathore, Rakesh Kumar, Ashok Singh Bhadauriya, Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, Raju Bhadauriya, Ravindra Singh, Narsi Sharma, Satyendra Singh, Vivek Singh, Lalla Bhadauriya, Sunil Gupta, Anil Pachauri, Harishchandra | ||
| 302 read with Section 34 IPC |
| R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, RI for 6 months. |
| 427 of IPC | : | One year R.I. |
| Appellant-Suryakant Tiwari, Jambwant, Shyam Sundar, Vinod Singh and Vishwanath Rajbhar and Avinash @ Lallan | ||
| 120-B IPC | : | 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months R.I. more. |
| 193 IPC | : | 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months R.I. more. |
| Appellant-Rakesh Chandra Trivedi, V.K.Pandey, Amrik Singh Gill | ||
| 120-B IPC | : | 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, 3 months R.I. more. |
| 218 IPC | : | 2 years R.I. |
| All the sentences to run concurrently. | ||
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Ram Avtar Jaggi @ Taru Jaggi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), a leader of Nationalist Congress Party was shot at 23:40 hours on 04.06.2003 in his car bearing registration No. CG-04-B-2111 and in this connection a First Information Report was lodged in P.S. Moudhapara, Raipur vide F.I.R. No. 104/2003 for the offence under Sections 447 and 307 I.P.C. on the instance of accused-V.K.Pandey, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Moudhapara. The deceased was sent to Hospital, where he died. On 05.06.2003 at about 2.15 a.m., another report vide F.I.R. No. 105/2003 was registered for the same incident under Section 302 I.P.C. on the instance of Satish Jaggi (PW-41), son of the deceased. Thereafter, 5 accused persons namely- Vinod Singh @ Badal, Avinash Singh @ Lallan, Jambwant Kashyap, Shyam Sunder @ Anand Sharma and Vishwanath Rajbhar were arrested in connection with Crime No. 104/2003 by the State Police and a charge-sheet was filed against them before the concerned Court, the matter was committed and ultimately, it was registered as S.T. No. 334/2003. During the course of trial, an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was moved by the Pu
The court upheld convictions for murder and conspiracy despite reliance on circumstantial evidence, finding sufficient connections through uncorroborated testimony and addressing potential political ....
An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or untenable in law. Where the view taken by the trial court is....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy beyond all reasonable doubts and the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establ....
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
