SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, CJI., J. Chelameswar, J.
Sadananda Mondal
Vs.
State of West Bengal
Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 2009
Decided On : 05 August, 2013
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 – Charge sheet – Investigation - At relevant time on intervention of Chakra borty and dispute was settled and thereafter all of them left place for their houses - When Bharat elder brother of facto complainant reached near house of son namely appellant herein fired at him from his house which hit on his chest near lungs and he fell down - Lifted Bharat Mondal with help of some villagers and took him in Jeep to Hospital for treatment – Held, courts below having disbelieved entire case of prosecution as regards accused persons on basis same evidence as rightly pointed out should not have convicted appellant when there was no other cogent and convincing evidence against him - In other words in absence of any clinching evidence or incriminating circumstance against him High Court committed an error in convicting appellant solely on basis of evidence who was one of brothers deceased when other brother did not corroborate him particularly when evidence found by High Court to be unreliable - Having disbelieved alleged eye witnesses while considering case of other accused persons in absence of any reason High Court is not justified in accepting very same statement of witnesses in case of appellant herein - Admittedly there was no recovery of alleged weapon used in incident - Pellet alleged to have emanated from gun also not got recovered and even no attempt was made to recover same - It is also not known whether pellet so fired was from same weapon - Court have already pointed out that made inconsistent statements during trial and while being examined Section of Code - There was also no explanation as discrepancy in fathers name of appellant de facto complainant being neighbor of appellant could not have made such vital mistake - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 11.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 155 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
2. Brief facts:
(a) On 14.01.2002, Avik Mondal (PW-1) - the de facto complainant and the cousin brothers of Sadananda Mondal (the appellant herein), namely, Newton Mondal, Manoj Mondal, Brojen Mondal and others were holding picnic. At about 4 p.m., the complainant party had altercation with Newton Mondal, Lalmohan Mondal, Brojen Mondal and Dilip Tarafdar. At the relevant time, on the intervention of Madhu Ghosh, Mrinmoy Chakraborty, Kartick Ghosh and Asish Sarkar, the dispute was settled and thereafter all of them left the place for their houses. When Bharat Mondal, elder brother of the de facto complainant, reached near the house of Narugopal Mondal, the son of Narugopal, namely, Sadananda Mondal (the appellant herein), fired at him from his house which hit on his chest near the lungs and he fell down. PW-1 lifted Bharat Mondal with the help of some villagers and took him in a Jeep to Berhampore Hospital for treatment.
(b) Thereafter, at 9.00 p.m., Avik Mondal (PW-1) went to the Tehatta Police Station and lodged a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) being No. 10 of 2002 was lodged under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). On the following day, i.e., 15.01.2002, Bharat Mondal succumbed to his injuries.
(c) On the basis of the said report, Sadananda Mondal-the appellant herein (A-1) along with 13 others viz., Prasanta Mondal (A-2), Sushanta Mondal (A-3), Sanatan Mondal (A-4), Nisith Mondal (A-5), Sukhen Mondal (A-6), Biswanath Mondal (A-7), Manoj Mondal (A-8), Mahitosh Mondal (A-9), Brojen Mondal (A-10), Dilip Tarafdar (A-11), Newton Mondal (A-12), Lalmohan Mondal (A-13) and Dasarath Tarafdar (A-14) was taken into custody. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 120-B of IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1, Krishnanagar, Nadia and was numbered as Sessions Case No. 2(10) of 2003.
(d) Vide orders dated 17/19.02.2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Krishnanagar, in Sessions Trial No. 111 of December, 2003 arising out of Sessions Case No. 2(10) of 2003 convicted 8 accused persons viz., Sadananda Mondal (A-1), Sukhen Mondal (A-6), Biswanath Mondal (A-7), Manoj Mondal (A-8), Mahitosh Mondal (A-9), Brojen Mondal (A-10), Dilip Tarafdar (A-11) and Newton Mondal (A-12) under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, rest of the six accused persons, viz., Prasanta Mondal (A-2), Sushanta Mondal (A-3), Sanatan Mondal (A-4), Nisith Mondal (A-5), Lalmohan Mondal (A-13) and Dasarath Tarafdar (A-14) were acquitted of all the charges.
(e) Being aggrieved of the above order, A-1 (the appellant herein), preferred an appeal being C.R.A. No. 155 of 2004 and rest of the 7 accused persons filed an appeal being C.R.A. No. 166 of 2004 before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 11.04.2008 allowed C.R.A. No. 166 of 2004 and set aside the judgment and order dated 17/19.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants therein and dismissed C.R.A. No. 155 of 2004 preferred by the appellant herein.
(f) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
Contentions:
4. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the entire materials, namely, oral and documentary ev
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.