Convictions of Apendra Shukla, Malti Loniya, and Others Affirmed for the Premeditated Murder of Annu Shukla
In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentences handed down to Apendra Shukla, Malti Loniya, and their co-accused for the murder of Annu Shukla. The division bench comprising Justices Rajani Dubey and Sachin Singh Rajput confirmed the convictions under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the chain of circumstantial evidence that led to their verdict.
The case revolves around the murder of Annu Shukla on January 20, 2015, in her matrimonial home. The prosecution successfully demonstrated that the murder was the result of a criminal conspiracy, orchestrated by her husband, Apendra Shukla, and his paramour, Malti Loniya, with the aid of accomplices Rajat, Chhotu alias Tingu, and Chiranjeet Kumar alias Deva.
The court detailed the sequence of events leading to the crime, including frequent telephonic communications and financial transactions among the accused, which substantiated their conspiracy to commit murder. The prosecution's case was bolstered by forensic evidence and testimonies from key witnesses, which, despite being circumstantial, formed a complete and coherent narrative of guilt.
The defense's arguments, which questioned the credibility of the witnesses and the completeness of the circumstantial evidence, were found unconvincing. The court noted that the trial court had meticulously analyzed the evidence, leading to a well-reasoned judgment that did not warrant any interference.
This decision marks a significant affirmation of the legal principles governing conspiracy and murder under Indian law, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain, can lead to a conviction. The judgment also highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice in cases involving heinous crimes.
Bottom Line:
Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC requires an agreement among individuals to commit an illegal act, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, as direct evidence is often unavailable.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 120B, 302, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313.
Ku. Malti v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2773562
