Citation : 2006 Local Law (CG) 297 : 2006(1)CGLJ353
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of four men found guilty of murdering college student Preeti Shrivastava in 1998. The court affirmed the trial court’s verdict delivered by the Sessions Judge of Sarguja, rejecting all appeals filed by the accused and the state’s plea for sentence enhancement.
A division bench of Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Justice Fakhruddin delivered the judgment, confirming the conviction of Samar Vijay Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and that of co-accused Rajkumar Tiwari, Javed Alam, and Ganesh Kashyap under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court, however, dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of Ranvijay Singh Tomar, owner of the vehicle used in the crime.
The case stemmed from a shocking incident on December 3, 1998, when Preeti Shrivastava, a final-year student at Government Girls College, Ambikapur, was crushed to death under a jeep driven by Samar Vijay Singh inside the college campus. According to eyewitnesses, the accused had first driven over Preeti’s belongings. When she confronted them and stood before the jeep demanding compensation, the men threatened her. On being exhorted by his companions, Samar Vijay drove the vehicle forward, knocking her down, and then reversed and accelerated again, running over her head. Preeti succumbed to her injuries shortly after being taken to the hospital.
The post-mortem confirmed fatal injuries to her skull, lungs, and liver, establishing homicidal death. The jeep used in the crime, bearing registration number MP-27-B-1068, was later seized from outside Samar Vijay’s residence. Forensic tests confirmed traces of blood and matching paint samples from the scene and the vehicle.
In their defence, the appellants claimed the incident was accidental and argued that there was no intention to kill, suggesting the act amounted at most to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the act of reversing and accelerating the jeep over the fallen victim clearly demonstrated intent to kill. The bench also held that the exhortations of the co-accused established common intention under Section 34 IPC.
The judges observed that the young eyewitnesses—college students who had seen the murder—were visibly traumatized and fearful, yet their statements, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, left no doubt about the accused’s guilt. Justice Deshmukh emphasized that the statements made by witnesses immediately after the incident formed part of the res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, as they were spontaneous and free from fabrication.
Justice Fakhruddin, in a concurring opinion, underlined that the act was intentional and deliberate, comparing it to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Vasant v. State of Maharashtra (1998), where deliberate use of a vehicle to kill was held to constitute murder under Section 302 IPC.
The High Court dismissed all four appeals filed by the convicts and the state’s plea for death penalty enhancement, stating that while the act was brutal, it did not qualify as “rarest of rare.” The two convicts, Javed Alam and Ganesh Kashyap, who were out on bail, were directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, to serve the remainder of their life sentences.
The court’s decision closed a long chapter in one of Ambikapur’s most disturbing campus crimes, reaffirming the principle that deliberate use of a vehicle to take life amounts to murder.
Case Details : Criminal Appeal Nos. 594 and 1239 of 2000, Criminal Appeal No. 716 of 2000 and 783 of 2005, Samar Vijay Singh Tomar and Ors. vs. State of C.G. and Ors. (20.03.2006)
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
Fakhruddin and Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Surendra Singh, Sr. Adv. and Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Pramod Kumar Verma, Addl. Adv. General for State and Meena Shastry, Adv. for the Complainant
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 164; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 304; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 6; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 201; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 302; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 304; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 304A; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34
Cases Referred:
Pratapsingh and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ; Kanda Padayachi vs. State of Tamil Nadu ; Sandeep and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. ; Heramba Brahma and Ors. vs. State of Assam ; Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia vs. The State of Hyderabad ; Suresh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. ; Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh vs. The State of Pepsu ; Gura Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan ; Vasant vs. The State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court Status:
Judgment challenged vide ( 2009 ) 6 SCC 450 : [ 2009 ] 8 SCR 398 dated: 08.05.2009
======
छत्तीसगढ़ हाईकोर्ट ने अंबिकापुर कॉलेज की छात्रा प्रीति श्रीवास्तव की हत्या के मामले में चारों आरोपियों की उम्रकैद की सजा को बरकरार रखा। अदालत ने कहा कि जीप से जानबूझकर कुचलना हत्या है, हादसा नहीं।
