Supreme Court Affirms Decision Passed by the High Court in the Case of Jayantilal Verma V. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The appellant filed this appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by the High Court, convicting the appellant herein for the offences punishable under section 302 of the IPC.  

Brief facts of the case

Sahodara Bai was found dead in her matrimonial home located in village Uslapur, District Rajanandgaon, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh). A marg intimation was lodged with the police at the request of her brother, one Kishore Kumar, who alleged that he had returned to village Uslapur on the information that she had died. He related a previous incident from a few days ago alleging that the deceased had returned to her maternal home to village Baiharsari stating that she had been harassed at the hands of her in-laws for the last 6-7 months. Postmortem was performed on the body and FIR was lodged at District Kawargha that the appellant herein, his father, one Lalchand and mother, one Ahiman Bai as accused of offences punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. The post mortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, and the nature of death was possibly homicidal. After the completion of the investigation and charges were framed the Sessions Court held all the three accused persons guilty of offences punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. All the 3 accused went for an appeal before the HC. In the course of the pendency of the appeal, Lalchand, the father-in-law of the deceased passed away. The HC acquitted the mother-in-law of the deceased & stated that there was no legally admissible evidence to convict her. But, the HC upheld the conviction of the appellant herein. He aggrieved by the HC judgment filled the present appeal before this court.

Arguments before the court

The Counsel for the appellant herein submitted that the circumstantial evidence was not of that nature that it could be said conclusively, and the chain of evidence was not completed to hold the appellant herein guilty. It was also argued that the statements of the witnesses were not recorded before the five days from the date of the incident, & also the site plan prepared by PW-7 was not proved.

The counsel for the respondent-State submitted that it has relied upon the fact that the accused did not give any explanation regarding the cause of death, even though the death had happened in the privacy of the matrimonial home. The appellant herein and his family were the only residents, where the body of the deceased was found and it states that a burden on them within the meaning of Section 106 (Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge) of the Evidence Act. 

Observation of the court

The court observed that the most significant point was where the death was caused and the body found. It was in the boundaries of the house of the appellant herein where there were only family members staying. The HC also found that the location of the house and the surrounding buildings were such that there was no chance that somebody from outside could come and strangulate the deceased.

The decision of the court

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent State to examine whether the appellant herein has completed 14 years of an actual sentence or not and if it is so, his matter shall be examined within a maximum period of two months. If not, the exercise should be undertaken within the same time on completion of 14 years of the actual sentence.

Click here to view the judgment. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -