IMPORTANT POINT
Value of evidence of witness named in the FIR and injured in the transaction and supported by medical evidence cannot be diminished by certain inconsistencies with evidence of other witndesses.

Headnote:Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – PW 16 an injured witness and named in the FIR – PW 6 also named in FIR – Their evidence being cogent and supported by medical evidence, its value could not be diminished merely because of certain inconsistencies with evidence of other witnesses. (Para 15)
       Facts of the case:
       10 accused persons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148/302/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 9-B(1) (b) of the Indian Explosives Act.
       Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 and 20.10.2001 in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2000 convicted accused Firoj Munshi @ Munshi Faruk Azam @ Munshi Firoj for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. The other accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. However, accused Galai Kazi @ Kazi Fazle Rahman, Muktar SK @ Rafique Islam and Milan SK @ Jamal Islam were held guilty of the offence under Section 326 IPC and were sentenced to suffer 08 years rigorous imprisonment. Rest of the accused were acquitted of all the charges leveled against them.
       The High Court acquitted them of all the charges leveled against them.
       The acquittal of six accused persons namely, Kamal SK, Khoke SK @ Sd. Hussain, Hasibur Rahaman @ Titu SK, Samsul Alam @ Firoj SK, Jamir SK @ Hussain and Dablu SK @ Dabu was challenged by the informant/appellant by filing Criminal Revision petition. Said revision was pending at the time when the appeal of 04 other accused persons challenging their conviction and sentence was considered by the High Court. This revision was dismissed by a non-speaking order.
       Finding of the Court:
       Approach of the High Court was not quite correct and the assessment made by it was completely flawed.
       Result: Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2018 dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2007 allowed.

ORDER

The informant is in appeal in these two matters challenging acquittal of 10 accused persons. Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2005 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2001 acquitting 04 accused namely, Firoz Munshi(A-9), Galai Kazi @ Fazle Rahman(A-1), Muktar SK @ Rafiqe Islam(A-7) & Milon SK @ Jamal Islam while the other Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2018 is directed against the order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2002 confirming the acquittal of 06 other accused namely, Kamal SK(A-21), Khoke SK(A-4), Hasibur Rahaman @ Titu SK(A-1), (4) Samsul Alam @ Firoj SK(A-2), Jamir SK @ Hussain (A-3) and Dablu SK @ Dabu(A-11).

2. The crime in the present case was registered pursuant to the First Information Report lodged by the informant/appellant at about 09.45 a.m. on 22.12.1999. It was stated that while the husband of the informant/appellant namely, Golap SK @ Samirul Islam (herein after referred to as “the deceased”) was returning at about 07.00 p.m after watering paddy fields along with his elder daughter, the accused persons encircled the deceased and started hurling bombs at him. He, therefore, sustained injuries on his back side and fell down. While he had so fallen down, he was also assaulted with fire arms. It was stated that one Mongal SK s/o late Budhu SK wanted to save the deceased but he was also seriously injured by the bombs of the miscreants. The First Information Report (FIR) thus referred to the presence of the elder daughter of the deceased and Mongal. Relevant to mention that this FIR was scribed by Jewel Munshi who was later examined as PW-2 in the trial.

3. During the course of investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded including the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of two daughters of the informant/appellant who were later examined as PW-6 and PW-7. The statement of Mongal was also recorded. Medical evidence was in the form of injury certificate recording the injuries suffered by Mongal and the post-mortem undertaken on the body of the deceased.

4. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed against 21 accused persons out of which 11 were stated to be absconding. The rest 10 accused persons were sent for trial and were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katwa in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 148/302/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and 9-B(1) (b) of the Indian Explosives Act. The prosecution principally relied upon the testimonies of PWs-2,4,6,7 and 16 who were stated to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The medical evidence was unfolded through the testimony of PW-18 Dr. N.D. Chatterjee and PW-20 Dr. Debkumar De. PW-18 Dr. Chatterjee deposed to the aspect of injuries suffered by Mongal SK while PW-20 Dr. De deposed about the post mortem undertaken by him on the dead body of the deceased. According to PW-18 Dr. Chatterjee who had treated Mongal SK there was an open wound over the left thigh extending up to left knee and he found the injury to be from bomb blast. PW-18 Dr. Chatterjee further stated that the said Mongal SK was admitted at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital from 11.12.1999 to 23.03.2000. PW-20 Dr. De who conducted the post-mortem found the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased:

“1) Whole body was stained with blood.
2) About 50% of the buttock – size 6” x 6” x bone deep is grossly lacerated and missing from the body by some blast.
3) The corresponding clothes are partly burnt and skin around the buttock is blanched.
4) On the skull the occipital region grossly lacerated and missing with expulsion of brain matters.
5) Majority part of skull is fractured.
6) The part of occipital region, the hair is blanched and partly burnt.
Except the above no other external injuries were detected on the person of the deceased.
Wounds stated in the above

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1302

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UDAY UMESH LALIT, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.ROJINA BEGAM – APPELLANT(S)VERSUSFIROZ MUNSHI & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1039/2007WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 302/2018 ROJINA BEGAM – APPELLANT(S)VERSUSKAMAL SK & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S) Decided On : 13-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINTValue of evidence of witness named in the FIR and injured in the transaction and supported by medical evidence cannot be diminished by certain inconsistencies with evidence of other witndesses.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
ROJINA BEGAM – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
FIROZ MUNSHI & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1039/2007
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 302/2018
ROJINA BEGAM – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAMAL SK & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
Decided On : 13-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Value of evidence of witness named in the FIR and injured in the transaction and supported by medical evidence cannot be diminished by certain inconsistencies with evidence of other witndesses.