Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
N.K. Gupta, Vivek Agarwal, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Petitioner
Versus
Anil - Respondent
Criminal Reference Case No. 02 of 2015 Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2015
Decided on : 02-08-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CONFIRMATION OF DEATH SENTENCE - REFERENCE BY TRIAL COURT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE CHALLENGED BY APPELLANT - FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE - EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES - ANALYSIS OF MOTIVE AND INTENTION - APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - DETERMINATION OF SENTENCE - CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION BUT MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE FROM DEATH TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Anil, was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Manisha, and daughter, Anushka. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, and the trial court referred the case to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the appellant was guilty of the murders. The court considered the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of bloodstained clothes and a weapon from the appellant. The court also found that the appellant had absconded from the spot after the incident and that he had no alibi.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the appellant was guilty of the murders. 2. Whether the appellant's conviction should be confirmed. 3. Whether the death sentence should be confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the appellant was guilty of the murders. The court considered the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of bloodstained clothes and a weapon from the appellant. The court also found that the appellant had absconded from the spot after the incident and that he had no alibi. 2. The court held that the appellant's conviction should be confirmed. The court found that the trial court had properly considered all of the evidence and that the conviction was supported by the evidence. 3. The court held that the death sentence should not be confirmed. The court found that the case was not a "rarest of the rare" case and that there were mitigating circumstances, such as the appellant's lack of criminal history, that weighed against imposing the death penalty.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal. The court confirmed the appellant's conviction of two counts of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, but instead of recording a death sentence, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/- on each count of charge under Section 302 of the IPC.
N.K. Gupta, J.
1. Since for confirmation of death sentence, a reference has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) relating to judgment dated 01.07.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.143/2014 and the appellant/accused has also filed a Criminal Appeal against the conviction and sentence, both the matters are hereby decided by the present common judgment.
2. Vide judgment dated 01.07.2015, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.143/2014 convicted the appellant Anil for the offence under Section 302 (two count charges) of IPC and sentenced with death sentence, the trial court has preferred the present reference for confirmation of death sentence.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant- Anil has filed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
4. Facts of the case, in short, are that Rajveer Sakhwar (PW-7), father of the deceased Manisha, had lodged the FIR Ex.P.-11 on 06.02.2014 at about 06:30 am at police station Sihoniya that on 05.02.2014 he along with his brother-in-law, namely, Brajkishore and one Vishram (PW- 8) went to the house of the appellant Anil who was his son-in-law to have talks and to resolve the dispute between Anil and his wife Manisha. The complainant and the witnesses conversed with the appellant Anil for a few hours and thereafter Anil along with deceased Manisha and her daughter Anushka went in a room to sleep in the house and in another room the complainant Rajveer Sakhwar (PW-7) and the witnesses Brajkishore and Vishram slept. On 06.02.2014 at about 04:30 am the complainant and witnesses heard Manisha shouting that the appellant Anil was killing her. They immediately rushed to the room and found that appellant was giving blows of axe to the deceased Manisha and thereafter, he gave a blow of axe to the deceased Anushka. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot. Rajveer Sakhwar (PW-7) took his daughter and grand-daughter in a Marshall vehicle to Police Station Sihoniya where he lodged the FIR. Both the injured were sent to District Hospital Morena (M.P.) for recording of MLC report and treatment. Dr. Aashish Kumar Agrawal (PW-5) examined Anushka and gave his report Ex P-7. According to him, she was brought dead and therefore he referred the dead body of the deceased Anushka for post mortem whereas Dr. Lokendra Yadav (PW-4) examined the deceased Manisha at District Hospital, Morena and gave his report Ex.P-6. He found as many as six incised wounds on her right cheek, right head and right ear. There was a fracture of mandible dislocate and teeth were found loosen. She was immediately referred to the Medical College, Gwalior (M.P.), however, she also succumbed to the injuries within 4-5 days.
5. Dr. Aashish Kumar Agrawal (PW-5) performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Anushka and gave his report Ex.P-9. He found an incised wound on left side of her neck and therefore various blood vessels and ligaments were found cut. The wound was deep up to C-3- C-4 vertebra. She died due to profuse bleeding caused from the injury. One abrasion was also found on her left arm. Dr. Sarthak Juglan (PW-6) performed the post mortem on the body of the deceased Manisha. He found five stitch wounds on right cheek, right eye, right cheek, right face and right head of the deceased whereas on right side of her face there were so many abrasions. On opening that part, he found that right portion of the head was cut. A few pieces of bone were found missing due to injury caused on the head. One depressed wound was found on meninges. On right side of the brain, subdural hemorrhage was found and according to Sarthak Juglan (PW-6) the death of the deceased Manisha was homicidal in nature caused by aforesaid injuries and their complications. The investigating officer, ASI Shri B.N. Upadhyaya (PW-9) went to the spot and prepared a spot map, Ex.P-13 whereas the articles were recovered from t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
