Guddi v. the State
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against conviction for murder and conspiring to commit suicide dismissed. The High Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant killed her husband and buried his body, citing her exclusive knowledge of the burial site as proof of complicity under Section 27 Evidence Act.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order on sentence are affirmed.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Reserved on : 7th January, 2016 % Date of Decision : 15th January, 2016
- CRL.A.1206/2014
GUDDI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M. L. Yadav and Lokesh Chandra, Advs. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
R. K. GAUBA, J:
- Through the appeal at hand, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 12.08.2013, and order dated 29.08.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2 (North West) Rohini, Delhi in sessions case no.72/2013 whereby she was held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and awarded imprisonment for life with fine of ₹10,000/besides rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of ₹5,000/- on the two counts, the gravamen of the charge mainly being that she had committed the murder of her husband (Ram Chander) on or about 01.07.2007, after alluring him from the house in village Qutab Garh within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kanjhawla (“the Police Station”), Delhi to a house in village Kharkhoda District, Sonepat,
Crl.A.No.1206/2014 Page 1 of 23
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery of the dead body at the appellant's house, pointed out by her without explanation of knowledge, establishes her complicity in the murder.
Whether the evidence chain, including motive arising from matrimonial discord, is complete to uphold the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the appeal against conviction and sentence ought to be allowed or dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Guddi
- respondent
The State
Coram
R. K. Gauba
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court