SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 1048

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
SUBHASISH MONDAL @ BIJOY - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1391 of 2008
Decided on : 21-11-2013

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Charge of double murder - Payment of fine - Case are stated in brief - Appellant was charged with murder of his elder brother and his mother at their house in town based on FIR filed by one who used to reside in quarter beside quarter of the victims - Trial court found him guilty for double murder of his brother and mother and sentenced him to imprisonment for life Section IPC - Against judgment and order of trial court appellant filed an appeal before High Court pleading innocence and lack of evidence and prayed for reversal conviction and sentence – Held, Another facet is required to be addressed to - Though all incriminating circumstances which point to guilt of accused has been put to him yet he chose not to give any explanation except choosing mode of denial - It is well settled in law that when attention of accused is drawn to said circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives false answer same can be counted as providing missing link for building chain of circumstances In case at hand though number of circumstances were put to the accused yet he has made bald denial and did not offer any explanation whatsoever - Thus it is circumstance that goes against him - In present case too accused has simply entered plea of innocence - Other explanation has been offered by accused in spite of incriminating circumstances that pointed to his guilt - It is our view that this is suspicious facet of this case mere denial of guilt on part of accused - This along with fact that was seen loitering around after occurrence and silver chain that he took from his sister found at site of murder all point to guilt of accused - His motive of vengeance as he was angry at being denied his father’s job led to him murdering his elder brother and mother - It is also on record that he was addicted to wine and mixed with anti social elements - Further railway ticket was found by complainant for date August from Howrah which presumably belonged to accused as he lived in Howrah and murder happened - All these circumstances which form reliable chain of events proved the hypothesis that accused is guilty of gruesome murder his family his elder brother and his mother – Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.:-This appeal is filed by the appellant– Subhashish Mondal @ Bijoy, against the final judgment and order dated 29.09.2006, passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the verdict of the trial court convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) on the charge of double murder of his brother and mother and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. The present appeal is filed urging certain grounds and legal contentions, praying to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and to reverse the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below.

2. The facts of the case are stated in brief. The appellant, Subhasis Mondal was charged with the murder of his elder brother, Debasis Mondal and his mother, Bithika Mondal at their house in Kharagpur town, based on the FIR filed by one Srinivas Rao who used to reside in the quarter beside the quarter of the victims. The trial court found him guilty for the double murder of his brother and mother and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC. Against the judgment and order of the trial court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court pleading innocence and lack of evidence and prayed for reversal of the conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the verdict of the trial court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

3. The prosecution case giving birth to the sessions trial was that the appellant, on the night of September 1, 2001, had allegedly killed both his elder brother and his mother at their railway quarter No.2 D/2, Old Settlement, Kharagpur Town and this fact of the gruesome murder of both the victims came to light when an FIR was lodged by one A. Srinivas Rao who was also a Railways Employee and who used to reside in the quarter just beside the quarter of the victims. Mr. Srinivasa Rao in his written complaint dated 1st September, 2001 alleged that he heard screaming sounds coming from the next door quarter and so he, along with his relatives and other neighbours went to quarter No.2 D/2 and found the dead body of Debasis, the brother of the appellant and his mother, Bithika in a precarious condition with serious injuries on her person. Bithika was subsequently taken to the hospital for treatment but she succumbed to her injuries. On getting this information, the police visited the place of occurrence and there, Mr. Rao presented his written complaint about the murder without any mention of the assailant as it was still unknown. On receipt of the written complaint, the case was investigated into and the police collected evidence from which it was reasonably felt that the appellant committed the murder of his mother and elder brother and thus, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC against the appellant for murder of his mother and elder brother and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses which included A. Srinivas Rao and some of the people of the locality, P.W 2 – Rupali Sen, the sister of the appellant and his deceased elder brother and daughter of his deceased mother, the doctor who conducted the Post Mortem examination, the doctor who examined the appellant soon after his arrest by the Investigating Officer(I.O) and the I.O himself. The learned trial judge after considering the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, and after hearing the contentions of both the appellant and the State finally came to the conclusion that the appellant coming from Calcutta on 31st










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top