Back
1993 Supreme(Cal) 460
High Court Of Calcutta
S. P. RAJKHOWA, RABIN BHATTACHARYYA
STATE - Appellant
Versus
GOUR GUHA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 322 Of 1992
Decided On : 10/08/1993
A.R.SAHAI, BALAI CHANDRA ROY, LALIT MOHAN DUTTA, SASHANKA KUMAR GHOSH, SEKHAR KUMAR BASU, Sobhan Lal Hazra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for thoroughness and fairness in the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the duty of the prosecution to produce all relevant witnesses, and the obligation of the court to examine the accused on incriminating circumstances.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 366, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the award of death penalty. The court also considers the appeal filed by the convict against the order of conviction and sentence. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused on the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The first information report was lodged by an officer of Assam Police, alleging that the accused poured kerosene oil on the body of the victim and set fire to her, resulting in her death. The trial court framed a charge under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused and another individual, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, including the presence of only four individuals at the place of occurrence, the testimony of witnesses, and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. The accused did not produce any medical evidence to support his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses and the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court also criticized the prosecution for not examining vital witnesses and for the casual approach to the burn injuries on the person of the accused. The court concluded that the accused should be acquitted on the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issues in the case revolved around the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident, and the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing a direct dialogue between the court and the accused during the examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also highlighted the duty of the prosecution to produce all relevant witnesses and the obligation of the court to examine the accused on incriminating circumstances. The court further emphasized the need for thoroughness in the examination of the accused under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The death reference was rejected, and the appeal by the convict was allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the accused was acquitted on the benefit of doubt and directed to be freed from incarceration forthwith.
( 1 ) THE Leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, by his Judgment and order dated 25. 11. 92 passed in sessions case No. 12 of 1987, has convicted accused Gour Guha under section 302 of the Indian P. C. and has awarded death penalty. The Learned Trial Judge has made a reference to this Court under section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the death sentence.
( 2 ) THE convict has also filed Crl. Appeal No. 322 of 1992 against the said order of conviction and sentence.
( 3 ) BOTH the reference and the appeal Are head together.
( 4 ) THE first information report, Ext. 5, was lodged with the Officer-in-charge, Toofanganj Police Station on 19. 7. 85 by an officer of Assam Police, i. e. , Shyam Kumar Dutta, Sub-Inspector of Police and the same reads as follows :-"i beg to state that on 18. 7. 85 at 3/3. 30 hours my sister's husband, Gour Guha poured kerosene oil in the body of my sister Basant and set fire for causing her death. Just after setting fire in the body Gour Guha gave water in her body. At that time maid-servant of the house shouted and neighbours of the area came and saw the incident. My sister was then taken to the Toofanganj Hospital by the Nibedita Matador in burnt condition and thereafter from there she was taken to M. J. N. Hospital, Coach Bihar in serious condition. My sister had been beaten by Gour Guha from some days. Gour Gains made conspiracy to cause the death of my sister by setting fire in the body and this is my ejahar and pray for enquiry into the matter.
( 5 ) UNDER the circumstances, I pray for acceptance of the written complaint and to investigate the matter and punish the culprits. It is mentioned here that delay caused because I am an employee of Assam Police, and reached here late. "
( 6 ) RECORDS show that on the basis of tins F. I. R. police registered a case under section 307 of the Indian P. C. and started Toofanganj Police Station Case No. 10 dt. 19. 7. 85. Next day, on prayer of the Investigating Officer, the Court added section 302 of tire I. P. C. During investigation, Police found complicity of Smt. Lakshmi Das in the commission of alleged murder of deceased Basanti Police Arrested both Gour Guha and Lakshmi Das and after completion of investigation submitted chage-sheet against both under sections 302/34 I. P. C. The Leaned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Toofanganj committed the case to the Court of Sessions as per provisions of section 209 of the Criminal P. C.
( 7 ) THE Trial Court framed a charge under section 302/34 Indian P. C. against both Gour Guha and Lakshmi Das. They pleaded not guilty. Prosecution has examined 25 witnesses. Defence has not adduced any evidence. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the Learned Trial Judge has observed that "the incriminating facts which have been exposed and discussed at length so far are incompatible with the innocence of the accused Gour Guha and incapable of explanation upon my other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt," and held him guilty under section 302 I. P. C. He did not find co-accused Lakshmi's involvement in the case and acquitted her. He heard accused Gour Guha on the point of sentence and thereafter passed the death sentence assingaing special reason that "the accused person in this case committed the murder with cruelty and for a sordid purpose without giving a chance to the victim. The murder was in cool blood and the accused person has taken enough precaution. The murder was committed with cruelty and accompanied by deliberate ferocity. "
( 8 ) HENCE the reference and the Appeal.
( 9 ) THE Learned Trial Judge has observed that no direct evidence as to the alleged murder is available and so prosecution has to rely solely on the circumstantial evidence as to the murder. The circumstances as found by the Learned Trial Judge establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant are :-1. At the relevant time, at the place of occurrence only four perso
