Date of publication: | Thursday, March 16, 2023 00:18 (IST)
Chhattisgarh High Court: Bilaspur (Naiduniya Representative). The Chhattisgarh High Court delivered an important decision on an appeal filed against the lower court’s decision in the murder case. Sam Koshy, while interpreting Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in his decision, said that once the prosecution case is not approved in relation to the crime of murder, it means that the Indian Penal Code cannot be convicted for the offense under Section 201 Cr . Because the evidence in that case is identical. The court overturned the lower court’s decision. This decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court has become an example of justice.
Lalaram Yadav, a resident of Daunrabhata village in Durg district, filed a petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the lower court’s decision through his lawyer. On 28 April 2004, co-accused Chitrarekha along with the appellant killed her husband Anirshad. After this, the two accused hid the body of Anirudh in the boundary of the field. After hiding the body, Chitrareka filed a missing report of her husband at the police station. After an investigation, on May 5, 2004, the police recovered the dead body from the field. Based on suspicion, an FIR was lodged against both the accused under Sections 302, 34 and 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sent to jail. The case was argued in the lower court.
In doing so, the prosecution heard 26 witnesses. In the judgment, the Court observed that as far as the offense under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the trial court independently convicted both the accused for the offense punishable under Section 201 IPC. Fined and sentenced to five years in prison. Challenging the lower court’s decision, Lalaram appealed to the High Court.
Counsel for the appellant argued before the Court that in the absence of any conviction under the main offence, which in the present case was Section 302 of the Criminal Code. There can be no conviction independently under Section 201 IPC. The lawyer told the Court that in the specific case the applicant had already been subjected to a prison sentence of more than one year, 10 months and 20 days. If for any reason this court does not agree with the contention that the offense under Article 201 of the CPC is not independently sustainable, that part of the sentence may be reduced to the period already served by the appellant.
The state government opposed the appeal
The public defender opposed the appeal saying that it was a case where the deceased co-accused was Chitrareka’s husband. It is alleged that Chitrareka had an extramarital affair with the appellant. The appellant and Chitrareka killed the deceased and buried the body in the field. He had a role in burying the dead body in the field. Therefore, the conviction under Section 201 IPC cannot be said to be culpable nor does it call for any interference.
high court comment
The High Court made an important comment in its decision. The court ruled that the punishment of the persons accused regardless of the offense under Article 201 of the CPC is not fair, legal or just. The complainant was acquitted of the charges brought against him for the offense under Article 201 of the Criminal Code.
Posted by: Abrak Akrosh