Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder. The High Court rejected the appellant's plea that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances or consider his explanation of natural death, dismissing the appeal.
Criminal Appeal dismissed upholding conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSSARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)
A 05^0^2013
iga, aged about
25 S/o Chander Baiga, years,
OccupationAgriculturist & Labour,
P.S.
^ P.S. '0^-. Rajnandgaon (C.6.) ^r^ ^:g?-'
^A^ A^"'
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.
Bakerkatta, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
TE
CONVICTCON
SENTENCE
U/s 30?of the I.P.C.
R.I. fpi'-^tife and fine of Rs. 500/and in default of paymeptof,fineadditional R.I.-for 3 month.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction the appellant prefers this appeal on the following facts <& grounds
•
The following is most respectfully submitted on behalf of appeltant:-
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P.SHARMA & Hon'ble Mr. I.S.UBOWEJA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.1057 of 2013
APPELLANT Khelam @ Khilawan Gaiga (In Jail)
Vs
RESPONDENT
State of Chhattisgarh
Mrs. Vijay Laxmi Saraf, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
.-;;rir VSffW- 'JUDGMENf- I|l,iy: ,?:,, (09.01.2015) S ,,,., " W,^h
T.P. Sharma,ia»;§-
,,,.,
\ after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-4, inquest of the dead body i, was prepared vide Ex.P-5. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3 & Ex.P'•,7. Bloodstained soil and plain soil was recovered from the spot vide
Ex.P-16. Dead body was sent for autopsy to the Primary Health Centre,
2--
£-
Salhewara where Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW-8) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-15 and found following injuries &symptoms:-
p»—
•3
appellant had offered plausible explanation that on account of chest pain the deceaseddied which has not been considered by the trial Court. The appellant was not under obligation to prove his defence as the case of the prosecution and he was only under obligation to create suspicion upon the evidence of the prosecution and to offer plausible explanation which he had offered.
A
^,
-^'
circumstances only inference is possible that the appellant had caused homicidal death of the deceased and it also excludes possibility of the appellant being innocent.
Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge
SdA.., Inder Singh Uboweja Judge
A
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court committed illegality in convicting the appellant for murder based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the appellant failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the homicidal death of the deceased.
Whether the inference of innocence is excluded given the medical evidence of fatal injuries and the false explanation offered.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Khelam @ Khilawan Gaiga
State of Chhattisgarh
T.P. Sharma
I.S. Uboweja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
