Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Goutam Bhaduri, Rajani Dubey, JJ
Hunga Kawasi, Sonu Kawasi, Budra Kawasi, Jholu Kawasi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA/143/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Gupta
Common intention under Section 34 IPC allows co-perpetrators to be equally liable without needing direct evidence of each individual's actions.
Headnote:The appeal under Section 374(2) challenges a conviction under IPC Sections 302/34 and 201/34, based on evidence from eyewitnesses and postmortem reports which confirmed the identity of the assailants, resulting in life imprisonment and fines. The court examined key issues of eyewitness reliability and established joint liability under Section 34 IPC, affirming the trial court's decision as just. The court concluded, 'In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eyewitness testimony corroborates the conviction of the appellants for murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. the appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. (Para 3 , 15) |
| 3. defense challenges the credibility of eyewitnesses and evidence based on circumstantial limitations. (Para 5 , 6) |
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar in Sessions Trial No. 80/2018 whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:-
Sentence
Conviction
Under Section 302/34 of IPC
R.I. for Life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months
Under Section 201/34 of IPC
R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 1 month
(Both the sentences to run concurrently)
Sentence
Conviction
Under Section 302/34 of IPC
R.I. for Life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months
Under Section 201/34 of IPC
R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 1 month
(Both the sentences to run concurrently)
Sentence
Conviction
Under Section 302/34 of IPC
R.I. for Life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 03 months
Under Section 201/34 of IPC
R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo additional RI for 1 month
(Both the sentences to run concurrently)
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2018, the complainant-
Pojje Markam along with her husband Gangaram Markam (deceased) and son Sukhram were drinking country-made liquor. At that time, 4 accused/appellants namely Hunga Kawasi, Sonu Kawasi, Budra Kawasi and Jholu Kawasi came there and called the deceased Gangaram as previous land dispute was existing between them. The allegation is that the deceased occupied the field forcefully belonged to the accused. The appellants dragged the deceased and took him towards one canal named Silkajhodi. At that time, the complainant went out to save her husband, thereafter all the accused took the deceased to the field and she saw that they assaulted the deceased by way of an axe turn by turn. She tried to intervene and requested not to kill, however, they did not accede to it and instead complainant and her son were threatened that if she does not leave the place, she would also be eliminated. After killing the deceased, they dragged the dead body and threw it into the canal which was seen by the wife and son. Merg intimation was registered on 18.08.2018 at the instance of wife of the deceased and based on the merg, the FIR was registered at Police Station- Darbha on the same day under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 506-B of IPC. Thereafter, the dead body was recovered and was subjected to postmortem. After arrest of the accused/appellants, on the basis of their memorandum statements, the weapon was seized. The statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet was filed.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. Learned Sessions Judge on the basis of statement of the eye-
witnesses i.e. (P.W.-7)- Pojje Markam & (P.W.-8)- Sukhram Markam convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as stated in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it would be quite strange to note that the eye-witness-(P.W.-7)- Pojje Markam who is wife of the deceased though claimed to have seen the incident but did not report the incident to any of the villagers for a considerable time. He would fu
