Back
1999 Supreme(Cal) 547
High Court Of Calcutta
GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, MALAY KUMAR BASU
RANJIT DAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 288 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/08/1999
Nani Gopal Sarkar, Pratima Das, RAM PRASAD BHATTACHERJI
In cases involving delayed FIRs, the Court may start with an initial suspicion, but it should not summarily dismiss the prosecution case without examining the totality of the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 304 PART I IPC - DELAYED FIR - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INTENTION TO KILL - CONVICTION ALTERED FROM SECTION 304 PART I TO PART II IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I, IPC for causing the death of Narugopal Biswas. The prosecution alleged that the appellant hit Narugopal on his head with a wooden pole, resulting in his death two days later. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he was assaulted by Narugopal and his friends.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had established the core aspect of its case beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the appellant had assaulted Narugopal on his head with a wooden pole, causing head injuries that ultimately led to his death. However, the Court found that the appellant did not have the requisite intention to kill Narugopal, and therefore altered the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Part II IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the core aspect of its case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to kill Narugopal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution had established the core aspect of its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the following evidence: a. Eye-witness testimony of disinterested witnesses who consistently stated that the appellant assaulted Narugopal on his head with a wooden pole. b. Medical evidence confirming that Narugopal sustained head injuries that were consistent with being caused by the wooden pole. c. The appellant's own admission that he assaulted Narugopal. 2. The Court held that the appellant did not have the requisite intention to kill Narugopal based on the following factors: a. The appellant did not use a deadly weapon. b. The appellant did not strike Narugopal multiple times. c. The appellant did not make any threats to kill Narugopal.
Final Decision: The High Court altered the appellant's conviction from Section 304 Part I to Part II IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four years.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 18th June, 1993 at about 6 p. m. the accused Ranjit Das hit the victim Narugopal Biswas on his head with a wooden pole as a result of which Narugopal sustained injury and was admitted to hospital on that very day and ultimately he succummbed to his injury at the hospital on 20-6-93 at about 10 a. m. The FIR which has been proved in this case by the prosecution is Ex. 1 that was lodged by P. W. 1, Raghunath Biswas, the father of the victim Narugopal. The said FIR was written and signed by P. W. 4 Sunil Biswas and it was also signed by P. W. 1 Raghunath Biswas, the informant. It was lodged at 1-25 p. m. on 20-6-93 on which date the victim Narugopal expired in the hospital. In the FIR it is stated by the P. W. 1 Raghunath Biswas that there was an altercation between his second son Gour Biswas and Ranjit Das (accused) 15 days prior to the incident and as a sequel thereto on 18-6-93 at about 6 p. m. the aforesaid Ranjit Das along with four others named in the FIR came to his house and called his son Gour and immediately his eldest son Narugopal came out and there was an altercation between Narugopal and the aforesaid persons for a few minutes and the accused Ranjit Das assaulted on the head of Narugopal with a wooden pole and then the victim was taken to Saktinagar Hospital and admitted there but he died in the said hospital on 20-6-93 at about 10 a. m. It is further stated in the said FIR that in order to make arrangement for treatment of his son he could not lodge a written complaint in due time. It may be noted here that the informant Raghunath Biswas, the father of the deceased is not eye witness to the occurrence. He (P. W. 1) says in his evidence that he is a driver by profession and on the relevant day he was not at home and when he came back home he learnt about the incident. In his cross-examination he says that he came to his house one day after the incident of assault on his son Narugopal by Ranjit Das. He says that his son Narugopal died two days after the date of assault. In his examination-in-chief he has also spoken of the incident of assault on Narugopal by Ranjit. Evidently, his evidence on that aspect is a hear say evidence because he was not present at the time of incident and he came to learn about the incident when he returned home next day. However, as we have seen, he lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) and it is his evidence that he also produced the wooden pole (Ext. I) with which his son was assaulted, to the Darogababu who seized the same under a seizure list on which he put his signature. In cross-examination it is suggested to P. W. 1 on behalf of the defence that his son Narugopal along with others went to assault the brother of Ranjit Das over taking of bidi and that Narugopal and his friends tried to assault Ranjit Das and Ranjit Das was somehow able to save himself from the clutches of the friends of Narugopal which however he denies. P. W. 2 Sadhan Mondal says that Narugopal died on 20-6-93 and the occurrence took place on 18-6-93. He says that he was near the Togbogia Bridge at about 6 p. m. and on hearing a shouting he rushed to the P. O. which was by the side of the house of Raghunath Biswas and he found that Narugopal was lying on the ground with bleeding injuries on his head and he came to learn from Sunil Bisw
