Back
DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Suchand Pal – Appellant
Versus
Phani Pal – Respondent
Supreme Court appeal against Calcutta High Court's acquittal of respondent accused convicted by trial court under Sections 302, 307/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act for gun shot killing of deceased in family courtyard dispute. (!) [1000082960001]
Prosecution case: Accused parties conspired to erect fence in shared courtyard; when opposed by complainant party, accused Phani Pal fired gun from first-floor balcony targeting complainant then deceased sweeping courtyard, hitting her back; deceased identified shooter before dying; FIR lodged promptly. [1000082960001][1000082960004]
Defence version: Existing fence uprooted by complainant party; scuffle ensued on first floor where gun accidentally fired during struggle, hitting deceased at close range as she emerged from room; prosecution later varied stand to claim short-range firing. [1000082960002][1000082960003][1000082960004]
Trial court discarded defence, convicted accused Phani Pal; High Court acquitted, finding defence more probable due to medical evidence of close-range gunshot (tattooing/scorching inconsistent with prosecution's balcony firing), unreliable dying declaration (deceased affirmed husband's responses, not voluntary), and prosecution's mid-trial variation. (!) [1000082960004][1000082960008]
Appellate court in acquittal appeal has no restriction on reviewing evidence; acquittal strengthens innocence presumption; if two reasonable views possible, adopt accused-favourable one; interfere only for compelling/substantial reasons like unreasonableness or unjust elimination of convincing material; paramount duty to prevent miscarriage of justice (acquitting guilty as serious as convicting innocent); re-appreciate if admissible evidence ignored. [1000082960007]
Prosecution must prove its case substantially on own strength, cannot rely on defence weaknesses; court cannot invent new prosecution case; medical evidence supported defence accidental close-range shot in scuffle; dying declaration invalid as not voluntary (husband answered queries, deceased repeated). [1000082960008]
Supreme Court found no infirmity in High Court reasoning, upheld acquittal; appeal dismissed. [1000082960008][1000082960009] (!)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-This appeal has been filed questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the accused ). The Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore, had found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ) and also Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Arms Act ). Sentence of imprisonment for life, 7 years and one year respectively was awarded. Originally 5 accused persons were there, and each was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34, and 447 IPC. One Golok Pal died before charge sheet was filed. Similarly accused Narendera Patra died during trial and three persons namely accused appellant Phani, Niranjan Pal and Swaran Dutta faced trial. The trial Court found accused Niranjan Pal and Swaran Dutta to be not guilty. It was only the accused-respondent No. 1 who was found guilty and convicted as aforesaid.
2. Accusations which led to trial of the accused is as follows :
Information was lodged at the Binpur P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
