Judgements

Judgment Overview

COURT  NAME  :- Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

CASE NAME   :- SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH  Appeal (Crl.), 1349 of 2013

JUDGEMENT  DATE   :- Feb 25, 2022

RELATED  SECTION  :- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Section 302 – Punishment for murder

IMPORTANT  PARAGHAPH:-

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J

Though the matter is posted for directions but,

having regard to the circumstances of the case and the

issues involved, we have heard learned amicus curiae and

learned counsel for the State finally at this stage itself.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant

background aspects of the matter are that the appellant

herein had been convicted of offences under Section 302 IPC

and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, after having been

tried in Sessions Case No. 05 of 2004 by the Court of Ninth

Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg.

The accusations against the appellant had been that

he was having a love affair with the deceased but, got

enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy;

and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed

knife, leading to her death. As per the post-mortem report

(Ex. P-21A), as many as 12 injuries were found over the

body of the deceased, including penetrating wounds on lungs

and liver. The prosecution also examined PW-1 as an eye-

witness, who asserted having seen the appellant repeatedly

causing injuries on the person of the deceased. The

prosecution further asserted that the weapon of offence,

the knife of about 21 cm long blade, was recovered on the

disclosure made by the appellant.

Taking an overall view of the evidence, the Trial

Court held that the prosecution had been able to

substantiate the charges; and, after convicting the

appellant as noticed above, awarded varying punishments,

including that of life imprisonment for the offence under

Section 302 IPC. In appeal, the High Court again examined

the relevant evidence and found no reason to interfere with

the findings of the Trial Court and thus, affirmed the

conviction of the appellant as also the punishments awarded

to him.

The learned amicus curiae has submitted that there

had been no evidence of matching of the blood allegedly

found on the knife with that of the deceased; that PW-1

cannot said to be a reliable witness, particularly when the

incident allegedly happened in front of his house, but he

neither raised any alarm nor tried to save the deceased;

and that excessive number of injuries on the person of the

deceased would suggest involvement of more than one person.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has

duly supported the findings of the Trial Court and the High

Court.

Having examined the matter in its totality, we find

no reason to consider any interference in this appeal.

As regards the scope and width of such an appeal by

special leave against concurrent findings, this Court, in

the case of Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Criminal

Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018 decided on 09.02.2022, after

a survey of various decisions on the topic, has summed up

as follows: DOWNLOAD FULL JUDGEMENT :- CLICK HERE 

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE :- CLICK HERE