In an appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and conspiracy, the High Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the death resulted from a premeditated act driven by political enmity over election loss, rather than a road accident.
The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07/03/2020 was affirmed.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (Judgment Delivered on 20/06/2023)
CRA No. 448 of 2020
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocates For State/Respondent : Shri Arijit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
CAV JUDGMENT Per Goutam Bhaduri, J
Heard.
2
Under Section : R.I. for 7 years and fine amunt of 120B of Indian Rs.1000/- and in default of payment Penal Code of fine further S.I. for 3 months Under Section : Life Imprisonment and fine amount 302 of Indian of Rs.1000/- and in default of Penal Code payment of fine further S.I. for 3 years.
3
Sectio 120B IPC. The case was committed to the sessions Court by JMFC, Lormi and during the course of trial, the appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution total 26 witnesses were examined and after the entire trial, the appellant was convicted. Hence this appeal.
4
because of earlier rivarly. He would submit that the eye witnesses have been implanted in the case and he placed his reliance in the matter of Khema alias Khem Chandra etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh {2022 SCC OnLine SC 991} , therefore, the judgment and the finding of the Court below is completely faulty which needs to be corrected.
5
6
of this witness, certain suggestions though were given that because of certain dispute, false allegations have been attributed, but the same was denied. She further states that at village Manki she was Sarpanch and Shail Joshi was Up-sarpanch. Certain suggestions were given that Shail Joshi had made certain allegations about corruption, which was denied. Specific suggestion when were given to her that she had falsely inculpated because of the enmity, the same was denied.
7
dashed a motorcycle whereupon the motorcycle fell on the right side of the road and Lalbahadur Dehariya, the deceased, was stuck up in the vehicle. He was dragged to quite a distance, thereafter, by doing the forward and reverse, the car ran over the deceased, by the time the son of the deceased also reached to the spot. This statement when is examined with the statement of Vikram Bahadur (PW-3), the similar statement has been made, whereby this fact was affirmed that after the car hit the deceased, he fell on the left side on the car and he was dragged and thereafter, the car ran over him.
8
9
to draw a presumption that death was due to car accident. Therefore, the motive whether it was a simple accident or actually after preparation the execution of intention was carried are required to be examined. In order to ascertain the motive, the submission of Manik Lal Dahariya (PW-1), Sarojani Dahariya (PW-2) would show that they made the statement that because of the no confidence motion against Shail Joshi, threat was extended that the deceased and his wife would be killed under the car.
10
which was narrated by Salik Ram Bhaskar (PW-5) the reason was that the relative of the appellant/accused was elected in the Panchayat office and by way of no confidence he was removed and the entire allegation was attributed to the deceased.
15.The relevancy of the fact under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, 1982 reads as under:-
6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. — Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
(b) A is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
reiterating the principle laid down in the case of Sukhar v State of UP has noticed the position of law in para 48 and the Court has observed
thus:-
11
“6. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule whereunder the hearsay evidence becomes admissible. But for bringing such hearsay evidence within the provisions of Section 6, what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there should not be an interval which would allow fabrication. The statements sought to be admitted, therefore, as forming part of res gestae, must have been made contemporaneously with the acts or immediately thereafter. The aforesaid rule as it is stated in Wigmore's Evidence Act reads thus:—
“Under the present exception [to hearsay] an utterance is by hypothesis, offered as an assertion to evidence the fact asserted (for example that a car-brake was set or not set), and the only condition is that it shall have been made spontaneously, i.e. as the natural effusion of a state of excitement. Now this state of excitement may well continue to exist after the exciting fact has ended. The declaration, therefore, may be admissible even though subsequent to the occurrence, provided, it is near enough in time to allow the assumption that the exciting influence continued.”
“1. The declarations (oral or written) must relate to the act which is in issue or relevant thereto; they are not admissible merely because they accompany an act. Moreover the declarations must relate to and explain the fact they accompany, and not independent facts previous or subsequent thereto unless such facts are part of a transaction which is continuous.
12
persons, e.g., the declarations of the victim, assailant and bystanders. In conspiracy, riot, the declarations of all concerned in the common object are admissible.
The Court further held that the Rule embodied in Section 6 of the Act, 1982 is usually known as the Rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue 'as to form part of the same transaction' becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurance.
13
14
statement of Sarojani Dahariya (PW-2), who states that after family member of the accused lost seat in the Panchayat, open threat in public was extended to eliminate deceased and before the incident also a place near Patharimod, the accused tried to kill the deceased by a car. On the date of incident the action of appellant is further supported by the eye witness Vikram Bahadur (PW-3), who states that the Scorpio deliberately dashed the deceased and ran over him. The intention and the preparation of the conspiracy was established by Salik Ram Bhaskar (PW-5), who has heard the accused to make preparation of the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, therefore, the intention, preparation and execution was proved by the witnesse which proves that the death was not due to accident it was intentional and deliberate. Happening of the incident was also witnessed by Yogesh Dahariya (PW7), who has seen that the deceased was initially dashed then dragged under the car thereafter the car was reversed and again ran over the deceased who was on the road.
Sd/- Sd/Goutam Bhaduri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Judge
Ashu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC and conspiracy under Section 120B IPC stand correct.
Whether the threats leveled prior to the incident and the acquisition of the driving license shortly before the incident establish a premeditated motive.
Whether the statements regarding threats and conspiracy forming part of the same transaction are admissible under res gestae.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khema alias Khem Chandra etc. Vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶23
Khema alias Khem Chandra etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh {2022 SCC OnLine SC 991} · Who else cites this
Balu Sudam KhaldeRelied on¶67
Balu Sudam Khalde (supra)
Sukhar v State of UPRelied on¶71
Sukhar v State of UP reported in (1999) 9 SCC 507 · Who else cites this
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu PunnayyaApplied¶84
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya reported in 1976 (4) SCC 382 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shantanu Joshi
State of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
