Monday , December 23 2024

High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a double murder convict

F34de2060119402e7a6143cfe453ffb4 (3)

Bilaspur, 21 November (HS). The High Court has justified the life imprisonment of the culprit of the double murder that took place in Khapri village of Takhatpur. In the hearing held in the division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, the court considered the testimony of the wife of the accused present at the spot and injured in the attack as sufficient, “giving greater importance as evidence to the evidence of the injured witness and his statements.” There are things to be ignored and accepted.

In fact, on the night of October 8, 2018, convict Ashwani Dhuri entered his in-laws’ house in Khapri village of Takhatpur and carried out a fatal attack with a sword and a spade. His father-in-law Siyaram and mother-in-law Shakun Bai were killed in the attack, while his wife Uma was seriously injured. Accused Ashwani’s wife Uma left him and started living with her parents after social divorce. Despite several threats and altercations, Uma refuses to return to her husband, enraging Ashwini and launching a murderous attack.

The district court heard and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Accused Ashwani was convicted under sections 307, 450 and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge in Bilaspur in November 2021. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment along with additional penalties for related offences.

Before the High Court, Ashwani’s counsel argued that Uma’s testimony, being an interested party, was unreliable. The prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses. The defense also pointed to a dispute over property within the victim’s family and questioned the involvement of the appellant. However, the state counsel argued that the prosecution’s case was supported by irrefutable evidence, including the testimony of the injured Uma. This was confirmed by medical and forensic reports. The High Court has rejected the appeal considering the testimony of the injured eyewitness as important.