Reserved
Capital Case No. 1357 of 2009
(With Reference No. 2 of 2009)
Chhotey Sahu s/o Badri Sahu ... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2009
Shobhit Chaturvedi s/o Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi …. Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. … Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 2009
Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi s/o Gaya Prasad Chautvedi … Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. … Respondent
AND
Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2009
Billar Sahu s/o Badri Sahu … Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. … Respondent
Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J
Hon’ble B.N.Shukla, J
(Delivered by Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J)
By Judgment and Order dated 16.1.2009 passed by Sessions
Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2003 State Vs. Shobhit
Chaturvedi and others, the accused Shobhit Chaturvedi, Billar and
Chhotey have been found guilty and convicted under section 302/34
I.P.C.; whereas accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi has been found guilty
and convicted under section 302/149 I.P.C. Accused Chhotey has also
been found guilty and convicted under section 25 Arms Act by the
Judgment and Order passed in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2003 State vs.
Chhotey. Thereafter by order dated 23.1.2009 passed by Sessions Judge,
2
Banda in the aforesaid Sessions Trials, accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi
has been sentenced for life imprisonment under section 302/149 I.P.C.;
accused Shobhit Chaturvedi and Billar have been sentenced for life
imprisonment under section 302/34 I.P.C. whereas accused Chhotey has
been sentenced with death penalty under section 302/34 I.P.C. and has
been directed to be hanged till death. The said accused Chhotey has also
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years under section 25
Arms Act. Both the sentences of accused Chhotey have been directed to
run concurrently.
Challenging the said Judgment and Order, accused Chhotey has
filed an appeal which has been registered as Capital Case No.1357 of
2009; accused Shobhit Chaturvedi has filed Criminal Appeal No.423 of
2009; accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi has filed Criminal Appeal No. 424
of 2009 and accused Billar has filed Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2009.
Since death penalty has been awarded to accused Chhotey, the Sessions
Judge, Banda has also made a Reference under section 366 Cr.P.C.
which has been registered as Reference No. 2 of 2009.
Since all the aforesaid cases (Capital Case, Criminal Appeals and
Reference) relate to the same incident, they have been heard together
and are being decided by a common judgment.
In brief the facts are that the complainant Ram Sanehi s/o late
Laxman Prasad Raikwar lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, Banda on 5.8.2003 at 8.40 p.m. As per the said first information
report, Awadhesh alias Pota s/o Ram Sanehi Raikwar was returning to
his house from Mahabiran Temple and at about 7.30 p.m., when he
reached the street (Gali) in front of the house of Bhawani Shashtri, he
was surrounded by accused Shobhit Chaturvedi s/o Dr. Sharad
3
Chaturvedi; Billar s/o Badri Sahu, Chhotey s/o Badri Sahu and Dr.
Sharad Chaturvedi who were armed with knives and country made
pistol. At some distance, the witnesses Chhotey s/o late Laxman Prasad
Raikwar and Sanjai s/o Santosh were coming from behind and on seeing
Awadhesh having been surrounded by the aforesaid accused persons and
on hearing the shouts of Awadhesh, the said witnesses intervened and
raised alarm, hearing which the complainant Ram Sanehi as well as
Suraj s/o Maiyadeen and Om Prakash alias Bablu s/o Babu Ram rushed
to the place of incident where they all saw accused Shobhit Chaturvedi
and Billar giving repeated knife blows to Awadhesh with an intention to
kill him because of which Awadhesh fell down. Accused Dr. Sharad
Chaturvedi was exhorting the other accused persons to kill Awadhesh.
On seeing the complainant and other persons, accused Chhotey s/o Badri
Sahu fired two shots from his country made pistol on Awadhesh as well
as gave him blows with his knife. The complainant and other witnesses
threatened the accused persons, because of which they ran away from the
scene of occurrence. Thereafter the complainant took his injured son
Awadhesh to the Government Hospital where he was declared dead. In
the end, it was stated in the first information report that the dead body of
Awadhesh was lying in the Hospital and that report be registered and
necessary action be taken.
On the basis of the written report, a Chick Report (Ext. Ka-3) was
prepared by Constable Moharrir Ram Asrey on 5.8.2003 at 8.40 p.m.
which was registered in the G.D. at No. 60/20.40 Crime No. 332/2003
under section 302 I.P.C. against all the four accused persons. Initially
from 5.8.2003 to 23.8.2003 the investigation was conducted by Sri Siraj
Ahmad, Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Banda and on his
4
transfer the investigation was handed over to Inspector Sharad Pratap
Singh on 28.8.2003 who, after investigation, submitted charge sheet
under section 302/34 I.P.C. against three accused namely, Shobhit
Chaturvedi, Billar and Chhotey. Accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi was not
charge-sheeted by the police. A charge sheet under section 25 Arms Act
was also submitted against accused Chhotey after obtaining the sanction
from the District Magistrate.
On 20.2.2004 charges under section 302/34 I.P.C. were framed
against accused Shobhit Chaturvedi, Billar and Chhotey. On the same
day accused Chhotey was also charged under section 25 Arms Act. Since
the accused persons pleaded not guilty, the case was put to trial. Sessions
Trial No. 354 of 2003 proceeded against accused Shobhit Chaturvedi,
Billar and Chhotey under section 302/34 I.P.C. whereas Sessions Trial
No. 255 of 2003 proceeded against accused Chhotey under section 25
Arms Act. Both the Sessions Trials were tried simultaneously and
decided by a common judgment which is under challenge.
The prosecution examined the complainant Ram Sanehi s/o late
Laxman Prasad Raikwar (father of the deceased Awadhesh) as P.W.1;
Suraj son of Maiyadeen, who was also named as a witnesses in the
F.I.R., as P.W. 2; Dr. Shrikant Bajpai, who conducted the post mortem,
as P.W.3; Constable Ram Asrey Kushwaha who prepared the chick
report, as P.W.4; Sub Inspector Sharad Pratap Singh, who was the
second Investigating Officer from 28.8.2003, as P.W.5; Sub Inspector
Siraj Ahmad who was the first Investigating Officer who conducted
investigation from 5.8.2003 to 23.8.2003, as P.W.6; Sub Inspector Har
Prasad Verma who prepared the inquest report and other relevant
documents, as P.W.7; Constable Budh Singh who recovered the country
5
made pistol and empty cartridges, as P.W. 8 and Sub Inspector
Chandramani Pandey who confirmed the chick F.I.R. under section 25
Arms Act against accused Chhotey, as P.W.9.
As per the post mortem report prepared by Dr. Shrikant Vajpai the
following 16 ante mortem injuries were found over the dead body of
Awadhesh:-
1. Incised wound 4 x 1 cm bone deep situated 0.5 cm Below from
left lower eye lid.
2. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm bone deep over left cheek situated 0.5
c.m away laterally towards left cheek.
3. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm muscle deep situated 2 c.m below left
mandible.
4. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm muscle deep situated 5 c.m below left
ear.
5. Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm situated 7 c.m below left clavicle.
6. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep situated 7 c.m below
laterally to left nipple.
7. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep situated 6 Committee of
Management. Below left abdomen.
8. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm situated 13 c.m below left nipple. It is
bone deep.
9. Abrasion on left deltoid area of left top of should 6 c.m below.
This abrasion was in an area of 10 x 9 c.m.
10.Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm bone deep in the scalp of oxipital
area.
11.Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm dorsal aspect of left wrist.
12.Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm situated at left wrist joint lateral
aspect.
13.Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep situated on the base of
thumb.
14.Multiple abrasions on right cheek in an area of 6 x 4 c.m.
15.Gun shot entry would over left side of neck 2 c.m. x 2 c.m.
margins were inverted situated at 5 c.m. Below left cheek. On
section the wound was left to right direction. On section the
subcutaneous tissues were lacerated on the skin. Trachea was
lacerated. Upper part of right lung was lacerated and right
scapula was fractured.
16.Gun shot exit wound 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. The margins were everted.
On section the wound was communicated to injury no.15.
It may be note worthy to mention that the complainant Ram
Sanehi P.W. 1 was examined on 1.7.2004. An application under section
319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution. After hearing the parties on
6
such application, the Sessions Judge, Banda vide his order dated
5.7.2004, allowed the said application and summoned Dr. Sharad
Chaturvedi under section 319 Cr.P.C. through the process of non-
bailable warrant for abetting the murder of Awadhesh alias Pota and thus
Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi also faced the trial of the case.
Statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded on 18.9.2004 in which all the accused stated that the whole
prosecution story was false and that the complainant Ram Sanehi and the
witness Suraj had falsely implicated them in the case because of enmity
and gave false statements. Accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi had also
stated that he was busy in his clinic where he was treating his patients
and gave details of the patients, their diseases and time of treatment by
producing the patient treatment register. He also stated that he owned a
good reputation in the district as a Medical Practitioner for the last 34
years as well as in social field and that the Investigating Officer had
rightly found him innocent and that he was not involved in the crime.
After the statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, the
Court summoned Sri Raudash, Assistant Director, Forensic Lab, Agra as
C.W.1 who proved his report dated 10.5.2004 (Ext. Ka-23) as well as
Paper no. 101-Ka which contained the descriptions of items sent under
sealed cover to the court below. The Court also examined Constable
Shiv Nandan as C.W. 2 who proved the G.D. No. 8/8.00 dated 6.8.2003
(Ext. Ka-25) through which a memo from District Hospital was received
at P.S. Kotwali Nagar.
The defence filed 13 papers as per list 139-Kha dated 6.11.2004
which are as follows:-
1. Certified copy of charge sheet in case crime no. 181/03, under
7
sections 308, 323, 504,506 IPC., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, State vs.
Santosh and others as Ex.Kha-2.
2. Certified copy of F.I.R. in case crime no. 507, 508 of 2003 under
section 13 G. Act and 25(1-B) Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali City as
Ex.Kha-3.
3. Certified copy of chargesheet in case crime No.20/03 under
section 279, 304A I.P.C., P.S. Baberu, District Banda against Ram
Sanehi as Ex. Kha-4.
4. Certified copy of F.I.R. case crime no. 571/85 under sections 399,
402 IPC., Crime no. 572/85 under section 5 Explosive Act, Crime
no. 573 to 576 of 1985 under sections 25/27 Arms Act and Crime
no. 577/85 under section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali City,
Banda against Alok and others as Ex. Kha-5.
5. Certified copy of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. State vs.
Alok and others as Ex. Kha-6.
6. Certified copy of voter list of Vidhan Sabha as Ex.Kha 7.
7. Voter list of Constitutency No. 304, Naraini Village Tarkhari,
Paper no.146 Kha/1 to 146 Ka/12.
8. Voter list of Constituency No. 303 Mohalla Khutla of 2003 Paper
no. 147 Ka/1 to 147 Ka/11.
9. Voter list of Constituency No.303 Banda Mohalla Khutla of 2003
Paper no. 148 Ka/1 and 148 Ka/2.
10.Voter List of Constituency No. 303 Banda Mohalla Khutla
Madhiyan Naka of 2003 paper no. 149 Ka/1 to 149 Ka/12.
11.Voter List of Constituency No. 303 Banda Mohalla Khutla
Madhiyan Naka of 2003 paper no. 150 Ka/1 to 150 Ka/12.
12.Voter List of Constituency No. 303 Banda Mohalla Khutla
Madhiyan Naka of 2003 paper no. 151 Ka/1 to 151 Ka/13.
13.Voter List of Nagar Panchayat Election Ward No. 13 of Banda
2000 paper no. 152 Ka/1 to 152 Ka/14 and 153 Ka/1 to 153
Ka/14.
The defence again filed 2 papers as per list 155 Kha dated
9.11.2004 which are as follows:-
1. Certified copy of the plaint filed in the court of Settlement Officer
Consolidation, Banda as Ex. Kha-8.
2. Certified copy of Vakalatnama as Ex. Kha-9.
Besides filing of the above papers, the defence examined
Constable Vakil Singh Chauhan as D.W.1 to prove that Constable Ram
Prasad was not on duty on the said date till 10.30 A.M.
Statement under section 313 Cr.PC. of all the accused persons
were again recorded on 6.6.2006 and all the accused answered that the
evidence against them was wrong and due to enmity. Thereafter the
8
defence filed further 5 papers as per list 225 Kha dated 21.9.2006 which
are as follows:-
1. Receipt of Electricity Board, Banda.
2. Photo copy of letter of Ex. Engineer, Electricity Power
Corporation, Banda dated 1.8.2006
3. Photo copy of the report of J.E. 33/11 K.V., Bhuragarh, Banda
dated 31.7.2006
4. Photo copy of log sheet of Corporation dated 5.8.2006
5. Photo copy of log sheet of Corporation dated 6.8.2006.
After close of evidence, the Sessions Judge, Banda heard the
parties and passed the impugned judgment and order.
On behalf of the appellants we have heard Sri Gopal Swaroop
Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel and Sri V.P.Srivastava, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Samit Gopal. Sri D.R.Chaudhary, learned
Government Advocate was heard on behalf of the State.
In brief the submissions of Sri Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the
appellants, is that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case by
producing independent witnesses. It has been submitted that the presence
of P.W.1 Ram Sanehi as well as P.W.2 Suraj is doubtful and their
testimony is not acceptable as they were chance witnesses. The other
witnesses named in the F.I.R., namely, Om Prakash alias Bablu son of
Babu Ram, Chhotey son of late Laxman Prasad Raikwar and Sanjai son
of Santosh have not been produced. It has further been submitted that the
incident is said to have taken place at a crowded place and yet there were
no independent witness produced and that the appellants have been
implicated because of enmity as a case under section 308 I.P.C. had been
registered against the complainant Ram Sanehi on the complaint filed by
accused Chhotey s/o Badri Sahu. It has also been submitted that there
was no source of light at the place of incident and thus the complainant
could not have identified the witnesses named in the F.I.R. Sri
9
Chaturvedi further argued that even if it is presumed that knife blows
were given by accused Shobhit Chaturvedi and Billar, the injuries
sustained by Awadhesh were simple in nature and cannot be termed as
grievous injuries defined under section 320 I.P.C. In the end it was
submitted that at best it could be a case of common intention for causing
simple injuries under section 324 I.P.C. and by firing the country made
pistol, which caused the death of deceased Awadhesh, accused Chhotey
exceeded the common intention. It was submitted that in any case the
involvement of accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi was not there inasmuch
as his presence at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and none of
the witnesses have assigned any role to him or even stated that he (Dr.
Sharad Chaturvedi) was carrying any weapon by which he could have
caused any injury to the deceased Awadhesh and that his role of
exhortation also cannot be believed as once his presence on the scene of
occurrence becomes doubtful, the question of exhortation also does not
arise. It has thus been submitted that the final report submitted by the
police in favour of accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi ought to have been
accepted.
While adopting the arguments of Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, Sri
V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior counsel also appearing on behalf of the
appellants, further submitted that as per the site plan the witnesses were
about 120 paces away from the place of incident and in a crowded
market place the cries and shouts of deceased Awadhesh could not have
been heard from such a distance and as such the presence of the
witnesses itself is very doubtful and the accused have been implicated in
the case merely because of old enmity.
Sri D.R.Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate appearing for
10
the State, however, submitted that there was no suggestion of enmity of
the complainant with the accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi and Shobhit
Chaturvedi and there was thus no reason for falsely implicating the
accused persons. It has been submitted that the plea of alibi of Dr.
Sharad Chatrurvedi was not proved and it would not be believable that
if a murder had taken place in the vicinity of the clinic of Dr. Sharad
Chaturvedi at 7.30 p.m. he would continue to attend his patients till
10.00 p.m. specially when his own son was named as an accused in the
F.I.R. Sri Chaudhary submitted that it was a clear case of murder in
which the accused persons were involved and had been identified in the
light of the bulb outside the house where the incident had taken place
and that it was for the prosecution to produce the witnesses whom they
thought fit and proper and it was not necessary to produce all the
witnesses named in the F.I.R. In his submission, the appeals lack merit
and the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge be confirmed.
It it true that all the witnesses named in the F.I.R. have not been
produced as witnesses of fact. The prosecution has only examined the
complainant Ram Sanehi P.W. 1 and Suraj s/o Maiyadeen P.W.2.
However, the incident had taken place in a crowded market where the
said two witnesses cannot be said to be merely chance witnesses as their
presence near the place of incident has been properly explained. It is not
the case where the incident had taken place at an isolated place where
the said two witnesses would be required to explain their presence. The
place of incident being a market place, the said two witnesses could have
been there in normal course and could have witnessed the incident from
a distance. The source of light for identifying the accused is fully
explained as there was a bulb lit up outside the house where the incident
11
had taken place. The shouts and cries of the deceased Awadhesh could
have been heard by the witnesses because of which they approached the
place of incident and on the exhortation of the said witnesses as well as
others, the accused persons ran away after giving knife injuries and gun
shot injuries to the deceased Awadhesh. It is not necessary for the
prosecution to examine all the witnesses named in the F.I.R. Judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that when a murder takes place, even
though in a crowded place, independent witnesses fear to come forward
to give evidence. However, in case if the occurrence is proved by even
one witness, even though he may be an interested witness, then too, it
would not falsify the entire case merely because independent witnesses
were not produced. Both the witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.1 Ram Sanehi and
P.W. 2 Suraj have clearly proved the fact of the murder of Awadhesh
Kumar.
However, as regards the involvement of the accused Dr. Sharad
Chaturvedi is concerned, we are of the view that his presence on the
scene of occurrence is not fully proved. No specific role has even been
assigned to him. None of the witnesses have stated that accused Dr.
Sharad Chaturvedi was carrying any knife or country made pistol or any
other weapon with him. It appears that there could have been an incident
of the other three accused persons having been embroiled in a fight with
the deceased Awadhesh in which repeated knife blows may have been
given by them and on the P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as other persons
rushing towards them and on their exhortation the accused Chhotey, who
was carrying a country made pistol with him, fired at the deceased and
thereafter all of them ran away.
From a perusal of the ante mortem injuries it is clear that the first
12
14 injuries are by knife blows. They cannot be termed as grievous or
serious in nature as they are all muscle deep or bone deep and in case if
the same had been given with a intention to kill, then they would have
been more grievous because if three persons give repeated knife blows to
one single person with the intention to kill, then the knife blows would
be sufficient to ensure that the person dies of such injuries, but the nature
of injuries which have been mentioned in the post mortem report are not
such which could have caused death. The injuries which caused the
death are injuries no.15 and 16 which are gun shot entry and exit wound
over left side of the neck below the left cheek. The firing of the gun shot
is specifically assigned to accused Chhotey, with whom there could be
said to be an enmity. The intention to kill could thus be assigned to
accused Chhotey and not to other accused. Though the injuries caused
by knife blows, which are all simple in nature, are assigned to accused
Shobhit Chaturvedi and Billar but from the facts of this case it cannot be
said that accused Shobhit Chaturvedi and Billar had the common
intention to kill the deceased Awadhesh. As already held above, if the
intention of these two accused persons was also to kill, then they would
not have inflicted such knife blows which were only skin deep or bone
deep, specially when there was one person being attacked by three
accused persons. Thus, we are of the opinion that it is not a case which
would attract the provisions of section 34 I.P.C. where a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention of all.
Thus, in our view, each of the accused persons cannot be said to be liable
for the murder of the deceased Awadhesh.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that accused Shobhit
Chaturvedi and Billar could, at best, be guilty of causing injuries which
13
cannot be termed as grievous injuries. These two accused would thus be
guilty of offence under section 324 I.P.C.
Accused Dr. Sharad Chaturvedi, whose presence has not been
proved beyond doubt by the evidence adduced by the prosecution, would
thus not be guilty of the offence. His only role of exhortation has also
not been proved. We hold him not guilty of the offence for which he has
been charged.
As regards accused Chhotey, we are of the opinion that it was he
who had fired country made pistol which caused such injuries due to
which deceased Awadhesh had died. He alone would be guilty of the
offence under section 302 I.P.C.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties on the question
of sentence, we are of the opinion that the accused-appellants Shobhit
Chaturvedi and Billar, who have been found guilty under section 324
I.P.C., should be punished with imprisonment of three years.
Accused-appellant Chhotey has been awarded death sentence.
Awarding of capital sentence is an exception and it is obligatory on the
Courts to record special reasons, if ultimately death sentence is to be
awarded. While upholding the constitutional validity of the death
sentence, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bechan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1980 SC 898 has
held that as a legal principle death sentence can be awarded but only in
rarest of rare cases when the alternative option of lesser sentence is
unquestionably foreclosed. The guidelines laid down in Bechan Singh’s
case (supra) culled down as under:-
“(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
(ii) Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances
14of the offender also require to be taken into consideration
along with the circumstances of the crime. Life
imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.
In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when
life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate
punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of
the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to
impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be
conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
circumstances.
(iii) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so, the
mitigating circumstances have to be recorded full
weightage and just balance has to be struck between the
aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the
option is exercised.”
In our view, the crime committed by the accused-appellant
Chhotey, though proved and he having been found guilty under section
302 I.P.C., is not of such a nature to be placed in the category of rarest
of rare case in which capital sentence should be awarded. The present
does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case as per the guidelines
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bechan Singh (supra) as
well as the subsequent decisions, namely, (1) Machchi Singh vs. State
of Punjab 1983 (3) SCC 470 (2) Devendra Pal Singh vs. State of
N.C.T. Of Delhi 2002 (5) SCC 234, (3) Des Raj vs. State of Punjab
(2007) 12 SCC 494 and (4) Ram Pal vs. State of U.P. 2004 (47) A.C.C.
567. The accused-appellant Chhotey is thus awarded punishment of life
imprisonment under sentence 302 I.P.C. His conviction and sentence
under section 25 Arms Act is, however, maintained.
In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 2009 Dr. Sharad
Chaturvedi vs. State is allowed and the accused-appellant Dr. Sharad
Chaturvedi is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail.
His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.
15
Criminal Appeal no. 423 of 2009 Shobhit Chaturvedi vs. State and
Criminal Appeal no. 474 of 2009 Billar Sahu vs. State are partly
allowed to the extent that the conviction and sentence of the accused-
appellants Shobhit Chaturvedi and Billar Sahu under section 302/34
I.P.C. are set aside and instead they are held guilty and convicted under
section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years (3 years)
rigorous imprisonment.
Capital Case No. 1357 of 2009 Chhotey Sahu vs. State is also
partly allowed only to the extent the death sentence awarded to the said
accused-appellant Chhotey Sahu under section 302/34 I.P.C. is set aside
and instead he is held guilty and convicted under section 302 I.P.C.
simplicitor and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However,
the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Chhotey Sahu
under section 25 Arms Act is maintained.
Reference made under section 366 Cr.P.C. is not accepted.
The office is directed to certify the judgment/send record
immediately to the court concerned for immediate compliance and
necessary action.
dt. August 6, 2010.
dps