Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY AGRAWAL
Kishore Rajwade S/o Ramkeshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking the criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, Kishore Rajwade (A-1) has preferred Cr.A. No.1050/2018 and Sarita Rajwade (A-2) has preferred Cr.A. No.1115/2018 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 30-6-2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Sessions Trial No.65/2017 by which the two appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: -
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
| Sec. 201 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.50/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months Both the sentences shall run concurrently |
Sarita Rajwade (A-2)
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 7-7-2017 at 9.30 p.m. near
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
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 established that a sole confessional statement from a co-accused cannot be the basis for a conviction without corroborating evidence; the absence of eyewitnesses and substantial proof resul....
A confession by a co-accused is inadmissible against another under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; therefore, the prosecution's failure to connect the accused with the crime led to acquittal.
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
