In a recent legal case, the court’s meticulous legal analysis played a crucial role in convicting several accused individuals. The court’s detailed examination of the evidence highlighted the distinct roles played by each party involved in the incident. This blog delves into the intricacies of the court’s analysis and sheds light on the convictions and acquittals in the case.
Facts
- Twelve accused persons were tried in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
- The trial Court convicted and sentenced all twelve accused persons under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act.
- Accused nos. 1 to 9 were convicted by the trial Court, while accused nos. 10, 11, and 12 were given the benefit of doubt.
- The High Court affirmed the trial Court’s view on accused nos. 1 to 9, but granted the benefit of doubt to accused nos. 10, 11, and 12.
- The criminal appeals by eight convicted accused/appellants were filed against the High Court’s common judgment and order dated 10.01.2018.
- The genesis of the prosecution was based on a report by Shailendra Kumar Dhruv, leading to the registration of FIR No.247 of 2009.
- The incident took place on 18.08.2009 around 10.45 p.m. involving several accused persons and victims at a specific location.
- Accused persons arrived on four motor cycles and engaged in a violent confrontation with the victims.
- Assaults with weapons like Gupti and wooden sticks were made on the victims resulting in severe injuries.
- The accused persons beat Durgesh Mahant and Natwar Soni causing them to fall and bleed.
- Accused individuals like Dinesh Rawani, Brijesh, and others were identified as actively involved in the assault.
- The victims were taken to the hospital, where Durgesh Mahant succumbed to his injuries.
- Injuries sustained by the victims were examined and found to be life-threatening by medical professionals.
- The First Information Report was lodged against specific accused persons, highlighting the role of each individual during the incident.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Arguments
- The State Advocate, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, referenced the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod to support the conviction and sentencing of all the appellants.
- Mr. Sodhi argued that the High Court’s decision to convict and sentence the appellants was correct and should not be interfered with.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were attributed clear and overt acts, including giving fatal blows on the chest and head of the deceased.
- Accused No. 5 Javed facilitated the blow by holding the witness, according to PW1.
- None of the other accused, apart from the mentioned four, were stated to have given any blow to the deceased.
- Accused No. 5 Javed was the only other accused attributed with clear acts besides the primary four mentioned.
- The rest of the accused were not named in the First Information Report.
- PW7 attributed clear acts to Brijesh Sonkar, Mani Yadav, and Parmesh, and overt acts to accused Javed.
- The totality of evidence on record indicates the specific acts attributed to each accused, with a clear distinction between the roles played by each.
- The deceased died as a result of injuries suffered on the head and in the chest.
- Accused No.1 to No.4 were found to have participated in the acts that were clearly spelt out and proved from the record.
- The convictions of accused No.1 to No.4 are converted from Sections 302/149 IPC to Sections 302/34 IPC.
- Accused No.1 Dinesh Rawani, accused No.2 Brijesh Sonkar, and accused No.3 Mani Yadav were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC while accused No.4 Parmesh Thakur was acquitted of all charges.
- Accused No.10, No.11, and No.12 had already been granted the benefit of doubt by the High Court.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- The appeals by accused No.1 to accused No.4 are dismissed.
- The appeals by Manoj Sevani, Manoj Yadav, Sayyed Javed, and Manohar Balmiki are allowed.
- Conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC is converted to Sections 307/34 IPC.
- The acquitted appellants are to be set at liberty unless needed in connection with any other crime.
Case Title: MANOJ SEVANI Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2022 INSC 182)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001655-001655 / 2019
