Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 687
High Court Of Calcutta
ALOK KUMAR BASU AND TAPAS KUMAR GIRI, JJ.
SK.RAHIM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 612 Of 2003
Decided On : 11/09/2006
DEBASISH ROY, Minoti Gomes, PRADIP ROY, RANABIR ROY CHOUDHURY, S.S.ROY, SEKHAR BASU, SILADITYA BANERJEE, TAPAS KR.GHOSH
The court's decision highlights the importance of prompt and thorough investigation in criminal cases and the reliability of victim statements made soon after the incident. It also emphasizes the need for strict adherence to legal procedures, particularly when it comes to enhancing punishment.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ASSAULT - FIR - DELAY - WITNESSES - CORROBORATION - INVESTIGATION - SECTION 34 IPC - CONVICTION - SENTENCE - ENHANCEMENT - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 21 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 377(1) CR. P. C. - SUO MOTU REVISIONAL JURISDICTION - SECTION 307 IPC - SECTION 326 IPC - SECTION 341 IPC: Victim girl assaulted and seriously injured by three persons; FIR lodged after 28 hours; Delay in dispatching FIR and disclosing assailants' names; Investigation not conducted properly; Witnesses examined after a lapse of one year and nine months; Victim's statement before doctor and parents about assailants; Doctor's testimony corroborating injuries; Trial court's conviction and sentence upheld; No merit in appeals; Rule for enhancement of punishment discharged due to lack of jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
Victim girl, Nargis Alam, was assaulted by three persons while returning home from coaching on a bicycle. One of the accused hit her head, another assaulted her abdomen with a firearm, and the third attacked her with fists and blows. Nargis fell to the ground with severe injuries. Her parents and others rushed to the spot, and she was taken to a local hospital and later to Beck Bagan Nursing Home in Kolkata, where a bullet was recovered from her abdomen during surgery. Nargis was subsequently taken to Vellore for further treatment as her lower limbs became paralyzed due to the bullet injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established its case against the appellants. The victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and the statements of other witnesses. The court held that the appellants had acted in a common intention to assault the victim and convicted them under Sections 341, 326, and 307 of the IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and disclosing the assailants' names affected the veracity of the prosecution case. 2. Whether the investigation was conducted properly and the witnesses were examined promptly. 3. Whether the victim's statement before the doctor and her parents about the assailants was reliable. 4. Whether the doctor's testimony corroborated the victim's injuries. 5. Whether the trial court's conviction and sentence were justified. 6. Whether the rule for enhancement of punishment issued by the Division Bench was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and disclosing the assailants' names did not demolish the prosecution case as the victim was the only person present at the time of the assault and she could not have disclosed the names earlier. 2. The court found that the investigation was not conducted properly as the first investigating officer failed to examine the victim, her parents, and other relevant witnesses promptly. 3. The court held that the victim's statement before the doctor and her parents about the assailants was reliable as it was made soon after the incident and there was no evidence to suggest that she was not in a fit state of mind to make such a statement. 4. The court found that the doctor's testimony corroborated the victim's injuries and provided further evidence of the assault. 5. The court held that the trial court's conviction and sentence were justified based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. 6. The court held that the Division Bench lacked jurisdiction to issue the rule for enhancement of punishment as the State Government had not filed an appeal under Section 377(1) of the Cr. P. C. and the Bench did not exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the trial court's order of conviction and sentence was upheld. The rule for enhancement of punishment was discharged due to lack of jurisdiction.
( 1 ) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Court, hooghly while disposing of Sessions Trial case No. 3 of 2003 convicted Sk. Rahim, sk. Murshed Ali and Kaji Abdul Hassan under Sections 341/326 and 307 of the IPC and all of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. The learned judge also directed for payment of Rs. 75. 000/- by each of the convicted person as compensation to cover the cost, of treatment of the victim girl and also for her future maintenance in default all the victims were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 357 of the cr. P. C.
( 2 ) SK. Rahim and Sk. Murshed Ali challenging the above order of conviction and sentence have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2003 while Kaji Abdul Hassan has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2003 and both the appeals have been taken up together for disposal.
( 3 ) IT is pertinent to mention that while disposing of bail application filed by one of the appellants persons in connection with criminal Appeal No. 611 of 2003, on 8th may, 2006, a Rule was also issued for enhancement of punishment imposed against convict Sk. Rahim and Abdul Hassan by the trial Court and while hearing the present appeals, we have also heard submissions made on behalf of convicts Rahim and Abdul hassan in connection with the Rule issued for enhancement of their punishment.
( 4 ) THE prosecution case in brief was that on 25-1-1998 at about 6. 30 p. m. when nargis Alam, daughter of informant Farida alam was returning from her private coaching riding on a bicycle, near her house she was attacked by three persons, and one of the accused persons assaulted on her head while the second person assaulted her at her abdomen by a fire arm and the third one assaulted her with fist and blows. As a result of such sudden attack and assault nargis Alam fell on the ground being seriously injured and hearing her cry, her parents and others came on the spot and she was immediately shifted to a local hospital and thereafter for better treatment she was taken to Beck Bagan Nursing Home at kolkata where after operation a bullet was recovered from her abdomen and subsequently nargis was taken to Vellore for further treatment as after receipt of the bullet injury at he abdomen, her lower limits became paralytic.
( 5 ) FARIDA Alam, mother of Nargis on 26th january, 1998 lodged a formal complaint before Panduah Police Station and on receipt of such formal complaint, the cage was initiated and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the present appellants under Sections 341, 326 and 307 of the I. P. C.
( 6 ) THE learned Trial Judge after framing charges against all the three appellants under sections 341/32g and 307 of the I. P. C, asked the prosecution to produce evidence since all the appellants pleaded innocence and claimed for trial.
( 7 ) THE prosecution before the learned trial Judge examined nine witnesses in all including P. W. 1 Farida Alam mother of nargis, P. W. 2 Nargis herself, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 two local residents, P. W. 5 father of nargis, P. W. 7 Dr. Mansur Mumtaj who was the surgeon of Beck Bagan Nursing Home and conducted operation on Nargis, P. W. 8 the first I. O. and P. W. 9 the second I. O. who also submitted the charge sheet. Prosecution also produced the original written complaint of P. W. 1, one seizure list regarding recovery of bullet from the abdomen of nargis, sketch map of the place of occurrence and all papers relating to the treatment of Nargis both at Beck Bagan Nursing home and also at Vellore.
( 8 ) THE learned Trial Judge, after considering prosecution evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing submissions of prosecution and accused persons found all th
