LexRAJU @ DEVENDRA CHOUBEY versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 1084 RAJU @ DEVENDRA CHOUBEY v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 2012) AUGUST 21, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Murder with the aid of contract killers - Allegation that accused no. 1 hired C contract killers accused no. 2 to 4 to kill her daughter-in-law (deceased) as she was annoyed with the deceased on account of domestic dispute - PW-21 servant aged 13 years was eye-witness - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held: PW-21 was brought from village by accused no. 1 and o she used to take care of him, send to school anq give food and residence - No reason for him to falsely implicate accused no. 1 - The deposition of PW-21 was that accused no. 4 caught the deceased and accused no. 2 attacked her with knife 3-4 times - Incident occurred in the courtyard and E accused no. 1 was present in the passage - Accused no. 3 was standing outside the passage - Accused no. 1 and 2 threatened PW-21 not to disclose about the incident to anyone - Thus accused no. 2 and 4 had a single mission to kill the deceased and had not entered the house to commit F robbery - There was no evidence that they had previous animosity with the deceased - Statement of PW-21 that accused no.2 attacked the deceased was corroborated by the\ recovery of knife from accused no. 2 - Conviction of accused no.1, 2 and 4 upheld - As regards accused no. 3, there was G no evidence of his having played any role in the crime - No weapon or any property connected with crime was seized from him - He being innocent is acquitted - Child witness. The prosecution case was that on 25.11.2003, when H 1084 RAJU @ DEVENDRA CHOUBEY v STATE OF 1085 CHHATISGARH PW-1, husband of accused no. 1 returned home from A clinic, he found that servant PW-21 aged 13 years of age was weeping. When he went inside, he found his daughter-in-law dead and his wife accused no. 1 · unconscious. Accused No. 1 was the step mother-in-law of the deceased and used to be annoyed with the B deceased on account of domestic dispute. PW-21 worked as servant with the family. He was brought by accused no. 1. He lived in the house of accused no.1 and had his food there and studied in the school. PW-21 participated in the identification parade and identified the accused persons in the court by touching them. The deposition of PW-21 with regard to the murder c of the deceased was that accused no. 4 caught the deceased and accused no.2 attacked her with knife 3-4 times. The incident occurred in the courtyard and D accused no. 1 was present in the passage. Accused no. 3 was standing outside the house. After the assault, accused no. 2 went to the TV room where accused no. 1 had kept some money. Accused no. 2 threatened PW-21 not to disclose about the incident to anyone. Thereafter, E all the three accused fled from there. Thereafter, accused no. 1 took him upstairs to the terrace and asked him not to disclose the truth to anyone but to say that thieves came into the house and committed the crime. Accused no. 1 thereafter started shouting and lay down near the F deceased. The trial court convicted all the accused under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 1208, IPC. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High. Court. G Dismissing the appeals of accused no. 1, 2 and 4 and ~allowing the appeal of accused no. 3, the Court. HELD: 1; The deposition of PW-21 clearly implicated accused No.s. 1, 2 and 4. The picture that emerged was that accused no.1 caused the deceased to be killed and H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A for this purpose engaged accused No. 2 and accused No. 4 by paying them money. She also seemed to have ·had a scuffle with the deceased, which became apparent from the fact that her hair was found in the grip of the deceased during investigation. It is obvious that accused B nos. 2 and 4 did not enter the house to commit a robbery and had a single mission, namely, to kill the deceased. There was no evidence that they had any previous animosity with the deceased and appeared to have acted as contract killers. [Para 15] [1094-C-E] c 2. The prosecution found it difficult to pinpoint the motive but PW-1, husband of accused no.1 deposed before the Court that accused no.1 tried .to create a hindrance in the marriage of his son since she wanted her.daught
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.