Case Study by Poulami Das

8/8/2019 Case Study by Poulami Das

1/17

By Poulami Das

Guided By Mr. S.S.Ray

(Advocate of Supreme Court OfIndia)


2/17

NAME OF THE PARTIESNirmal Kumar Nishad

s/o Dhelu Ram Nishad

Aged- 22years

Occupation- Agreculterist

R/o- village Magarlod

P.S- Magarlod

District- Dhamtari (Chatisgarh)

Petitioner


3/17

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh

Police station- Magarlod

District- Dhamtari (Chhatitsgarh)

Respondent


4/17

IN THE SUPREM COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO:-34332 OF2009

[ARISING OUT OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT

AND ORDER DATED 10.09.2008 PASSED BY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

CHHATISGARH, BILASHPUR, IN CRIMINAL

APPEAL NO:-697 OF 2003.]


5/17

Subject Matter of the case:-

1. The petitioner is filling the present petition beingaggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.09.2008,passed by the Honble High court of judicature atChhatisgarh, Bilashpur, in criminal Appeal No: 697 of

2003 while dismissing the Appeal of the petitioner

upheld the order dated 5.5.2003 passed by theAdditional Session Court, Dhamtri district Dhamtri(chhattisgarh) in session case no. 324 of 2001. theSession court while acquitting the co-accused from theoffence under section 302/201/34 Of the IPC, convicted

the petitioner for the offence under section 302 and 201IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment forlife and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fineto further undergo


6/17

R.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 7 years and fine ofRs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo R.I. for 1 year.


7/17

FACT OF THE CASE:-

1.On 13.05.2001 the deceased was found hangingfrom the roof in her bed room by a saree. The

incident was reported by the co-accused, thegrandfather of the petitioner to the concernedpolice station. On the basis of which a mereintimation was recorded.

2. After the police reached the placed of theIncident, the room was opened andpanchnama was prepared. The dead body wassent for postmortem to the Primary Health

centre, magarlod.


8/17

3. The Autopsy Surgeons found that the body wasswollen; tongue was protruding out of mouth; eye ballswere also protruding and skin was showing wetness.There was no ligature mark on the neck and the knot of

the ligature (saree) was on the right side of the neck.Beside the lips, nails and entire face werefoundbluish.On internal examination hyoid bone wasfound fracture and there was profusion of blood inbrain. Liver, spleen and kidney were found congested.

The Autopsy surgeons opined that the cause of deathwas due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation whichmay be due to throttling gagging or smothering and thedeath was homicide in nature.


9/17

4. The Petitioner was arrested. After getting the postmortemreport, the first Information Report was registered.

5. All the accused refused the prosecution version and indefence their statement was that they were innocent and had

been falsely implicated in the case.

6. The judicial Magistrate 1st class at dhamatari in case no:287 of 2001 vide order dated 1.09.2001 committed in case of

trial.

7.That vide order dated 5.5.2003 the Additional Sessioncourt, Dhamtri District Dhamtri (Chhattisgarh) in sessioncase no:- 324 of 2001, while acquitting the co-accused from


10/17

the offence under section 302/201/34 IPC, convicted

the petitioner for the offence under section 302/201/34IPC.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated

5.5.2003 passed by the Additional Session court,Dhamtri District Dhamtri (Chhattisgarh) in sessioncase no:- 324 of 2001, filed an appeal being criminalAppeal no:- 697 of 2003 before the Honble High Courtof Judicature at Chhattisgarh, bilashpur.


11/17

9. The High Court of Judicature a Chhattisgarh, Bilashpur

vide order dated 10.09.2008, passed by the Honble HighCourt of Judicature at Chhattisgarh, Bilashpur, inCriminal Appeal no. 697 of 2003 while dismissing theAppeal of the petitioner upheld the order dated 5.5.2003passed by the Additional Session Court, Dhamtri District

Dhamtri (Chhattisgarh).10. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2008,passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature atChhattisgarh, Bilashpur, in Criminal Appeal No:-697 of

2003, the petitioner prefers the present petition beforethis Honble Court.


12/17

Judgement by High Court of Chhattisgarh,Bilashpur

Appellent- Nirmal kumar Nishad standsconvicted under 302 and 201 IPC by AdditionalJudge to the court of additional Session Judge,

Dhamtri district Dhamtri (chatisgarh) in sessioncase no. 324 of 2001. the Session court whileacquitting the co-accused from the offence undersection 302/201/34 Of the IPC, convicted thepetitioner for the offence under section 302 and201 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo R.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 7 years and


13/17

fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to furtherundergo R.I. for 1 year.

Grounds for Special Leave Petition:-

For that the High Court failed to appreciate that in a case

of pure circumstantial evidence where there are no eyewitnesses.

For that the Honble High Court has committed error of

law in convicting the petitioner as there was no absoluteevidence that the petitioner had committed the offence.


14/17

For that the High Court failed to appreciated that noindependent witnesses were presented by theprosecution.

For that the judgments of the courts below are basedon conjectures and surmises and not on cogentevidence and are therefore liable to be set aside.

For that the petitioner has been convicted only on thebasis of the testimony of interested witnesses.


15/17

PrayerIn the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Honble

Court may be pleased:

(a) Grant Special Leave to appeal against the judgmentand final order dated 10.09.2008, passed by the

Honble High Court of Judicature at Chhattisgarh,Bilashpur, in Criminal Appeal No:-697 of 2003

(b) Pass such other or further orders as this Honblecourt deems fit and proper in the circumstances of thepresent petition.


16/17

Certificate under order xvi Rule 4(1) andorder xxi Rule 3(5) of the Supreme Court

Rules, 1996.

Certificate that the above mentioned special leavepetition is confined only to the pleadings before thecourt/tribunal whose order is challenged and the otherdocuments relied upon in those proceedings. Noadditional facts, documents or grounds have beentaken therein or relied upon in the special leavepetition. It is further certified that the copies of thedocuments/annextures attached to the special leave


17/17

petition are necessary to answer the question of lawraised in the petition or to make out grounds urged inthe special leave petition for consideration of thisHonble Court. This certificate is given on the basis ofthe instructions given by the petitioner/personauthorized by the petitioner whose/affitdavt is filed insupport of the SLP.

Documents

Case Study by Poulami Das