Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 570
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Girish Chandra Gupta And Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.
BIRESWAR GOSWAMI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 326 Of 2000
Decided On : 07/27/2007
A.GOSWAMI, DEBASISH ROY, K.J.AHMED, K.MOITRA, KALLOL MONDIAL, RAJDEEP MAJUMDAR, SEKHAR BASU
The judgment establishes the principle that when crucial facts are within the accused's knowledge, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to disprove the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 201, Section 120b - The judgment discusses the charges under Section 302, Section 201, and Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code. The court acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Section 120b and Section 201, but convicted one accused under Section 302. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the evidence, including the victim's death, post-mortem report, and forensic evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Kakali, was found dead after allegedly setting herself on fire. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Bireshwar, administered alcohol and barbiturates to the victim and then set her on fire to ensure her death. The defense claimed that the victim consumed alcohol and tranquilizers voluntarily and set herself on fire.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence, including the victim's condition, the presence of alcohol and barbiturates in her body, and the lack of injuries on the accused. The court rejected the defense's claims and concluded that the accused committed the murder of his wife.
Issues: The key issues included the cause of the victim's death, the administration of alcohol and barbiturates, the possibility of self-immolation, and the credibility of the defense's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that when facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to disprove the prosecution's case. The court also considered the absence of evidence supporting the defense's claims and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the victim's death.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were affirmed. The accused was ordered to surrender and serve the remaining sentence within 15 days.
( 1 ) BIRESHWAR Goswami and Bisheshwar Goswami both sons of Shri Nakuleshwar Goswami and Shrimati Swati Goswami wife of bisheshwar Goswami, pursuant to a written complaint dated 23rd september, 1988 lodged by Shri Amarendra Nath Adhikari with the officer-in-charge of Asansol Police Station, which formed the basis of formal FIR, were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally committing murder of Shrimati Kakali Goswami daughter of the complainant amarendra Nath Adhikari under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing evidence of offence to disappear and knowingly giving false information with the intention of the screening the accused person from legal punishment and under Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code for having agreed to commit murder of Shrimati Kakali Goswami amongst themselves. The learned Trial Judge by his judgment dated 20th September, 2000 acquitted all the accused persons from the charges under Section 120b and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge further acquitted Bisheswar and his wife Swati from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Bireshwar was however found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and was convicted. By his order dated 21st September, 2000 the learned Trial Judge sentenced bireshwar to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The convict has now come up in appeal.
( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution briefly stated is that Kakali, daughter of Amarendra Nath Adhikari was given in marriage to Bireshear on 8th May, 1988. On 7th August, 1988 at 5 a. m. Bireshwar called at the residence of shri Amarendra Nath Adhikari and told him that one of his friends had met with a scooter accident and was admitted in the Burnpur hospital. He requested Mr. Adhikari to accompany him to which the latter readily agreed. They got into a taxi. While proceeding towards the hospital, Bireshwar divulged that Kakali had in the last night set herself on fire and had attempted to commit suicide and was lying at Asansol hospital. Shri Adhikari upon arriving at the hospital found his daughter dead. The family members of shri Adhikari namely his wife and son reached the house of Bireshwar after they were informed by Shri Adhikari. Shri Adhikari accompanied by his wife went to the hospital once again but the son was forbidden from going there by Bireshwar. Shri Adhikari alleged that he suspected foul play in the matter because his son-in-law was an alcoholic and was of loose morals. He added that he was of the firm belief that his daughter was forced to consume something and after making her unconscious she was set on fire. An allegation of torture, in the matrimonial house, upon the deceased daughter is also there.
( 3 ) THE case of the defence, as would appear from the suggestions given to the witnesses of the prosecution as also from the answers given to the questions put in examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, is as follows :
(a) Bisheshwar in answer to question No. 11 in his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. stated, inter alia, as follows : "bireshwar had gone to his friend's house, along with Kakali, and he had returned around 9 p. m. and thereafter we had gone to sleep. At about 12 p. m. /1 a. m. I had suddenly heard the words, "fire, Fire, save me, save me". I had gone to the first floor and had seen that kakali was on fire and my brother was trying to extinguish it. I along with my wife had assisted him. I had told my brother to summon a taxi. The neighbours too had arrived and we all had put her in the taxi and had taken her to the nursing home, but the nursing home did not admit her and we had taken her to the Sub-Divisional Hospital. She had expired around dawn. "
(b) Bireshwar in answer to question No. 17 in his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. st
