Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 137
High Court Of Calcutta
Alok Kumar Basu, Pranab Kumar Deb
SONA RAUTH, PARESH MALLICK - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A 99 Of 1999
Decided On : 03/06/2006
ASIMESH GOSWAMI, PINAKI BHATTACHARJI, PRADIP ROY, PUSHPAL SATPATI
Confessional statements are admissible in court if they are voluntary and corroborated by other evidence.
Headnote:
Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 201, 34 - Combined Charge - Identification of Accused - Confessional Statements - Corroboration - Motive - Conviction Upheld.
Fact of the Case:
Four individuals, including Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick, faced trial for the murder of Monoj under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC. After the trial, Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessional statements of both Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick were voluntary and corroborated by circumstantial evidence. The court also found that the identification of Sona Rauth by witnesses was reliable, despite some discrepancies.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessional statements of the accused were voluntary and admissible in court. 2. Whether the identification of the accused by the witnesses was reliable. 3. Whether the prosecution proved the motive behind the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confessional statements were voluntary and admissible in court as they were recorded in accordance with the statutory provisions and there was no evidence of coercion or assault. 2. The court found that the identification of the accused by the witnesses was reliable, despite some discrepancies, as it was corroborated by other evidence, including the confessional statements. 3. The court held that the prosecution did not need to prove the motive behind the murder as the motive was not an essential element of the offense of murder.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
( 1 ) FOUR persons in all namely Joy Prakash Prasad, sona Rauth, Paresh Mallick and Prem Prakash Prasad faced trial under section 302/201/34 of the IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, durgapore in connection with Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1996 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 11 of 1995.
( 2 ) AFTER conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick guilty of the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC and accordingly both of them were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default simple imprisonment for further period of three months each. Sona rauth and Paresh Mallick being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the order of conviction and sentence preferred this appeal in the year 1999 from jail.
( 3 ) ONE Ashok Kr. Bose submitted a written complaint with Kanksha p. S. in the district of Burdwan to the effect that on 12th January, 1992 at about 8. 00 hour in the morning he found an unknown deadbody by the side of a pond called Majhi Pukur near his hotel and he detected several blackish mark on the throat of the deadbody and a piece of coir rope was also found near the deadbody.
( 4 ) AFTER receipt of the complaint from Ashok Kr. Bose, Kanksha P. S. held inquest over the deadbody and also made arrangement for conducting post-mortem over the deadbody. Subsequently, uncle and younger brother of the deceased identified the deadbody to be that of one Monoj @ Munna and they further disclosed before the police officers that on the previous day i. e. on 11th January, 1992 one man came to the shop of deceased Monoj for hiring a video set along with cassettes and at the evening of the same day monoj in the company of that man along with video set and cassettes left for panagarh by a rickshaw.
( 5 ) POLICE on getting the identity of the deceased started a specific case under section 302/201/34 of the IPC and in course of investigation the rickshaw puller was interrogated and through the rickshaw puller identity of appellant Sona Rauth was established and after apprehending Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick, police also recovered the video cassettes from the house of Joy Prakash Prasad from Baroda Bhaban at Panagarh.
( 6 ) DURING investigation, police arranged for holding TI Parade in respect of appellant Sona Rauth and both the rickshaw puller and youngest brother of the deceased identified Sona Rauth as the person who along with deceased left the shop of the deceased on 11th January, 1992 along with video set and cassettes. During investigation, both Sona and Paresh gave confessional statements before one learned Magistrate. After completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet against four persons in all as indicted earlier.
( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302/201/34 of the IPC against all the four persons and they pleaded not guilty.
( 8 ) PROSECUTION during trial examined 14 witnesses in all which included p. W. I Ashok Kr. Bose who lodged the First Information Report regarding the deadbody of the deceased, P. W. 4 the rickshaw puller who carried the deceased and Sona Routh along with video set and cassettes on 11th January, 1992, P. W. 5 Niranjan, younger brother of the deceased who was present when Sona Rauth and deceased left the shop of the deceased for Panagarh in the evening of 11th January, 1992, P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 who were witnesses to the seizure of video set and cassettes from the possession of Joy Prakash prasad, P. W. 9 the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, P. W. ll the learned Magistrate who recorded confessional statements of both Sona and Paresh and who also conducted TI Parade in respect of appellant Sona rauth, P. W. 18 the first Investigating Officer who performed most part of the investigation and P. W. 14 who ultimately submitted the chargesheet.
( 9 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge having
