Facts
The deceased (Jagriti, Tina, Manish) and the injured (Oskumar, Oman, Geetanjali, Anarbai) were related to the appellants, Parasram and Brijsen Gayakwad.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 4On September 11, 2020, between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., the appellants entered Oskumar’s house, threw chili powder in the eyes of the occupants, and launched an indiscriminate attack with daggers due to a land dispute.
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 4Jagriti, Tina, and Manish died on the spot with their throats slit; four others sustained life-threatening injuries.
Source reference: para 4-5The Trial Court (1st ASJ, Mahasamund) convicted the appellants under Sections 459, 302/34, and 307/34 of the IPC via judgment dated June 18, 2025.
Source reference: p. 2, para 3The appellants challenged this conviction, arguing it was a spur-of-the-moment act without premeditated intent, suggesting the offense be mitigated to Section 304 IPC.
Source reference: p. 5, para 9Issues
1. Whether the deaths of the three deceased persons were homicidal in nature?
Source reference: p. 12, para 142. Whether the appellants acted with common intention and premeditation to commit murder under Section 302/34 IPC, or if the act constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
Source reference: p. 13, para 243. Whether the injuries caused to the survivors were sufficient to sustain a conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307/34 IPC?
Source reference: p. 13, para 24Law Applied
The Court applied Section 300 "Thirdly" of the IPC, which defines murder as causing bodily injury intended by the offender and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Source reference: p. 13-14It relied on the seminal precedent Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958), which established a four-step objective test to determine murderous intent based on the nature and sufficiency of the injury.
Source reference: p. 13-14, para 26It further cited Anda v. State of Rajasthan (1966), emphasizing that the "high probability of death" resulting from the choice of weapon and the targeted body part serves as a determinant factor for murder.
Source reference: p. 14, para 26The Court also applied Section 459 of the IPC regarding grievous hurt caused during house-trespass and Section 34 of the IPC regarding common intention.
Source reference: p. 15, 23Reasoning
The Court found the deaths were undeniably homicidal, supported by medical evidence from PW-16 and PW-17 showing slit throats and severed carotid arteries.
Source reference: p. 12, para 23Regarding intent, the Court rejected the "spur-of-the-moment" defense, noting that the appellants came armed with daggers, chili powder, and a crowbar (sabbal) to break locked doors; this demonstrated clear premeditation and a common intention to kill.
Source reference: p. 16, 22-23The testimony of injured eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-21, PW-22), who were naturally present at the scene during the early morning attack, was deemed highly reliable and consistent with the physical evidence.
Source reference: p. 18-21The recovery of blood-stained daggers based on the appellants' memorandum statements (Ex.P-14, P-15) and the forensic confirmation of human blood further linked them to the crime.
Source reference: p. 17-18, para 31-32The Court observed that attacking vital organs (necks) of sleeping children and women with lethal weapons met the "sufficiency" criteria under Section 300 IPC.
Source reference: p. 13-15Holding
The Court specifically noted that the testimony of "related" witnesses who are also "injured" witnesses cannot be dismissed solely due to their relationship with the victims when their statements are coherent and corroborated by medical evidence.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences, including life imprisonment for murder and 10 years for attempted murder.
Source reference: p. 24, para 46-47Original Court PDF
PARASRAM GAYAKWADvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in