Appeal against conviction and death sentence for murder of wife. High Court scrutinized eyewitness testimony regarding closed house and appellant holding weapons. Found evidence sufficient and dismissed appeal.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. upheld.
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 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR. A. No. ^ / 2011
Keshbo,
Aj?Bellant Keshbo,
"I
(In Custody)_^^.. S/o Jhitru, Aged about 30 years,
^^^y .^
cK^ ^r' ^ R/o Vill. Chote kawali bhatrapara.Nangur,
*<'? ;S'7''SVy
P.S. Frezerpur (Parpa) Distt. - -
^>''^ ...~
"».••"
State. C.G.
^"'.^ ^',''¥' ^^
••(V
VERSUS
RespondenL State of Chhattisgarh,
R/o Vill. Chote kawali bhatrapara.Nangur,
P.S. Frezerpur (Parpa) Distt. - - Bastar,
Through : Aarkshi Kendra Frezerpur (Parpa)
Distt. - Bastar
CRIM!NALAPPEAL_U/S_374L21PF_CmMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
S'fSS
rz:
1
Cr.A.No.201/2011
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 201 of 2011
• KESHBO
-—Appellant (in jail) Versus
• STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
— Respondent
MeinOaQf|?ippearil.Jnaer Secl:ietrB@?4;;®j&fthe Code pf Criminal %.'""'•-' ProcedureT'IS^ .,,n .„., For appellant ;' i»1^ >;]V|r,jVikas Shrivastava, AdvoGatB. For RespondenVState KK^s^tl.Jshpa Dwivedi, P.L. •f
Hon'ble Shri tfustice T. R. Sharma Hon'ble Shri Justice Irtder Siritih Uboweia, JJ.
-•/''-
JUDGMENT i'4 Judamentdictated Qh8oard;bs Hon'bJeJUIr^Justice T.P.Sharma
07.01.2015
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th June, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar place at Jagdalpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 122/09 whereby and whereunder after holding the appellant guilty for causing homicidal death amqunting to murder of his wife - Jamvati, the Court below convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonmeht for life with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to further undergo Rl for two months.
-\
W^lsa1:':3i'
Cr.A.No.201/2011
2
'sv'
Cr.A.No.201/2011
V-
5.— During the coi.irseoftinyestigation, the appellant was taken into custody,.bfe-made disclosure^Stafement of axe and Kadri vide Ex.P.7 and the same were recoveretf at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P.8. Bloodstained cloths |of t|i8:appellant were seized vide Ex.P.10. Sealed cloths ofthe deceaseffwBFeEiseized vide Ex.P.12.
/ /.-'
aSi
m
Cr.A.No.201/2011
4
313 ofthe Code in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocence and false implication in crime in question was claimed.
11.Mr. VikasKSHrivastavS.'yJearned counsel for' , 16 appellant, vehemently^iguetf thaf Gonyiction of the appellant is based on the evidence ofT.W.4 SanK Ram, P.W.5 Hiralal Dhruw and P.W.6 Ramesh, but, their evidence does notinspire confldence and trustworthy. As per they- evidence, apf>e)|ant|^and^body of the deceased have been found inskie the room, but^B&ipiSr the?spot map Ex.P.17, body of the deceased was lying on the veranda, which falsify the evidence of alleged eye witnesses. He further submits that even otherwise other persons are also residing in the same house and only liability upon the appellant cannot be fastened.
12.;. On the other hand, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence of P.W.4 Sant Ram, P.W.5 Hiralal Dhruw and P.W.6 Ramesh is sufficient for drawing an inference that only the appellant was author of the crime and even the appellant has made extra judicial confession before them.
5
Cr.A.No.201/2011
%-.. VS!-n-^ .//
Cr.A.No.201/2011
6
aforesaid witnesses, only inference would be possible that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and has committed the murder of hiswife.
Anjani >R
Sd/T.P. Sharma Jildge >s
Sd/Inder Singh Uboweja Judge
•r"
:"^{
^•^, 'KSS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction and sentence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be upheld based on prosecution evidence despite defence challenges to eye witness testimony.
Whether the trial Court committed illegality in convicting the appellant for murder of his wife without substantial evidence.
Whether the extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence are sufficient to fasten liability on the appellant.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Keshbo
State of Chhattisgarh
T. R. Sharma
Inder Singh Uboweia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
