SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE M.M. PUNCHHI, M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.)
MAHABIR BISWAS AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF W.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1991
Decided on 28-10-1994
Advocates appeared:
D.B. Vohra, Advocate, for the Appellants;
Tapash Ray, Senior Advocate (Dilip Sinha, J.R. Das and A. Bal, Advocates, with him) for the Respondent.
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/ 34 - Conviction based on confessional statements of two co-accused & discovery of silver ring of deceased pursuant to statement of appellant - Confession of co-accused can be pressed into service only to lend assurance to other substantive & reliable evidence - Recovery of ring made almost 6 months after murder not connecting appellant with offence of murder, confession of co-accused can not be called in aid - Conviction is unsustainable.
(paras 9 & 14)
JUDGMENT
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.-
Mahabir Biswas and Shiba @ Bijoy Krishna Dutta, the two appellants herein, along with six others, including one Amit Haldar @ Pagla, were arraigned before the Court of Session for offences punishable under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC. On conclusion of the trial the court, while recording an order of acquittal in favour of four, convicted the other four including the two appellants and Amit Haldar under Sections 302/34 IPC but acquitted them of the charge under Sections 201/34 IPC. As regards the charges under Sections 364/34 IPC and Section 379 IPC the Court recorded a finding that those were redundant in the facts and circumstances of the case and, as such, did not pass any formal order of conviction and sentence in respect of the same. For the conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC the two appellants were sentenced to death and the other two to imprisonment for life. The reference made to the High Court under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the sentence of death and the appeal preferred by the appellants were heard together and by the impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the conviction of the two appellants commuted their sentence to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal by special leave.
2. Bereft of details the case of the prosecution is as under. On 20-3-1987 at or about 10.30 p.m. Pabitra Bhattacharjee and Tapan Ghosh (the two victims) along with one Shambhu Debnath were returning to their respective houses in a rickshaw from Naihati Railway Station rickshaw stand after being dropped there by Dr Tarun Adhikari, the local M.L.A. On the way Shambhu Debnath got down from the rickshaw in front of his house. Immediately thereafter some miscreants led by the two appellants came there, surrounded the two victims, dragged them out of the rickshaw and forcibly took them towards the nearby football ground.
3. Information about the abduction of the two victims was given to the members of their families by Shambhu Debnath on the same night, who in their turn, informed the local police station. In spite of vigorous searches conducted by the members of the victims families and the police they could not be traced. However, on the following morning, their dead bodies were found lying by the side of a water tank on Adahata Road, Naihati with their hands tied and multiple injuries on their person. Thereafter on a written complaint lodged by Debaprasad, the younger brother of Pradip, a case was registered and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and others alleging that after forcibly taking the victims to the football ground the miscreants tied them with rope, killed them and removed their dead bodies to the nearby water tank.
4. The defence of the appellants, as it can be gathered from the trend of their cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statements made by them in their examination under Section 313 CrPC, was one of innocence and of false implication due to political rivalry.
5. That the dead bodies of the two victims were found lying on Adahata Road in the early morning of 31-3-1987 and that they met with their death owing to murderous assault stand conclusively proved by overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record. In fact, this part of the prosecution case was not seriously challenged by the defence. While the evidence of Sunil Bose (PW 18) and Ranjit Kumar Bhattacharya (PW 20), who were the two witnesses to the inquest (Exhibits 3 and 4), besides that of others, proves the find of the dead body, the evidence of Dr S.K. Ganguli (PW 36) who held post-mortem examination upon the two dead bodies proves the murder. PW 36 found four incised injuries on the mandible, chin and shoulders of Pabitra, besides some bruises and abrasions. In his opinion the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage caused by the incised injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. When shown the sword seized during investiga
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.