Accused Sentenced to Life for Murder and Attempted Murder in Family Land Dispute
In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and sentencing of Parasram Gayakwad and Bajrasen Gayakwad in a brutal triple murder case connected to a family land dispute. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, affirming the trial court's decision under Sections 459, 302/34, and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case, rooted in a longstanding land dispute, saw the accused allegedly throw chili powder into the eyes of the victims and attack them with daggers, resulting in the deaths of Jagriti Gaikwad, Tina Gaikwad, and Manish Gaikwad. Four other family members sustained serious injuries. The incident took place in the early hours of September 11, 2020, at the Gaikwad family residence.
The trial court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for the murders, alongside additional sentences for attempted murder and housebreaking. The defense argued that the incident was a consequence of a heated altercation due to the land dispute, claiming there was no premeditated intent to kill. However, the High Court, relying on medical reports, witness testimonies, and forensic evidence, found the defense's argument unsubstantiated. The court noted the brutal nature of the attack and the premeditation inferred from the use of deadly weapons.
The prosecution presented compelling evidence, including the recovery of bloodstained weapons and consistent testimonies from injured witnesses and independent seizure witnesses. The court also rejected the defense's claims of false implication, finding no credible evidence to support such assertions.
The judgment emphasized the sufficiency of injuries inflicted by the accused to cause death, aligning with principles laid down in landmark cases such as Anda v. State of Rajasthan and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab. The court underscored the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature due to the intentional injuries inflicted.
The decision marks a critical point in the judicial handling of cases involving familial disputes escalating to violence. The High Court's ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in determining the intent and culpability in violent crimes.
The appellants, currently serving their sentences, were informed of their right to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court. The judgment provides a stern reminder of the law's stance on premeditated violence and the severe consequences attached to such actions.
Bottom line:-
Conviction and sentence upheld under Sections 459, 302/34 (three counts), and 307/34 (four counts) of IPC for housebreaking, armed assault, and murder based on overwhelming evidence including medical reports, witness testimonies, and forensic evidence. Defense's claims of false implication due to a land dispute were not substantiated.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 459, 302/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Parasram Gayakwad v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889728
