CHUNTHURAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(SC)-2020-10-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 29,2020

Chunthuram Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [REFERRED TO]
RAMKISHAN MITHANLAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MUSHEER KHAN ALIAS BADSHAH KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MANOJ VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
TEJPAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAPPA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV PANDEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRASINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-299] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HRISHIKESH ROY, J. - (1.)The present Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 15.2.2008 of the Chhattisgarh High Court, whereby the Criminal Appeal No.513/2002 was disposed of upholding the conviction of the appellant in terms of the conclusion reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar (hereinafter referred to as, "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No.149/2001. The trial Court convicted the appellant and co-accused Jagan Ram, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each and for the conviction under Sections 201/34 IPC three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each was ordered. The co-accused Jagan Ram was however acquitted by the High Court.
(2.)The case of the prosecution is that on 14.6.2001 at 1900 hours when the deceased Laxman was returning from Tamta market to Pandripani village, the appellant Chunthuram and the co-accused Jagan Ram assaulted him with axe and stick, and Laxman died on the spot. The FIR was lodged by Mahtoram (PW1), the father of the deceased stating therein that when his son did not return home from Tamta market at night and enquiries were made in the village, his grandson Santram informed him that Chunthuram and Jaganram had killed Laxman and concealed his dead body in a pit. The informant rushed to the location and found the injury inflicted dead body of his son. The FIR mentioned a land dispute between the accused and the victim as also the fact that the deceased Laxman was charged with murder of one Sildhar, the brother of the two co-accused and because of this animosity, the accused had murdered Laxman.
(3.)Following the investigation, charges were framed and the case was committed for trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the charges. The accused in their Section 313 CrPC statements pleaded innocence and alleged false implication.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.