Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Debiprasad Sengupta, Arun Kumar Bhattacharya
NOYEL BARLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 23 Of 2000
Decided On : 08/23/2005
MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - ABSENCE OF MOTIVE - NON-EXAMINATION OF VITAL WITNESSES - EFFECT - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the accused struck the victim on her neck with a 'jhurni' in the courtyard of their house while she was cooking food, causing her to die instantly. The accused denied the charges and claimed that he was not present at the house at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence was too slender to sustain the conviction. The court found that the non-examination of two eyewitnesses, who were the victim's son and daughter and who were present at the time of the incident, affected the core of the prosecution case and prejudiced the accused. The court also noted that there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder and that the evidence of the post-occurrence witnesses was not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the non-examination of two eyewitnesses affected the core of the prosecution case? 3. Whether there was any motive for the accused to commit the murder? 4. Whether the evidence of the post-occurrence witnesses was reliable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that there was no direct evidence of the accused committing the murder and that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusive. 2. The court held that the non-examination of two eyewitnesses, who were the victim's son and daughter and who were present at the time of the incident, affected the core of the prosecution case and prejudiced the accused. The court noted that the witnesses were essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution was based and that their non-examination raised a presumption that their testimony would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. 3. The court held that there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder. The court noted that there was no evidence of a strained relationship between the accused and the victim and that the accused had no reason to kill her. 4. The court held that the evidence of the post-occurrence witnesses was not reliable. The court noted that the witnesses were not present at the time of the incident and that their testimony was based on hearsay.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
( 1 ) THE present appeal was preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29. 11. 99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar in Sessions Trial no. 18/1998 (Sessions Case No. 4/98) thereby convicting the accused appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for a further period of 6 months.
( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, in short, was that on 19. 4. 96 at about 8. 30 P. M. when the victim Juhuri Barla was engaged in cooking food in the courtyard, her son and daughter, namely Anil Barla and Santi Barla were sitting by her side and were assisting their mother. Accused Noyel barla, husband of the victim, was in his room. Suddenly accused Noyel barla came out of his room with a 'jhurni' in his hand, struck victim juhuri on her neck and fled away. Victim Juhuri Barla fell down on the Courtyard and died instantly. PW 6 Sunil Barla, son of the victim thereafter lodged an information with Jaigaon Police Station and a case was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Noyel Barla. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted and the learned Trial Judge framed charge under section 302 IPC, against the present appellant.
( 3 ) TO bring home the charge against the accused person prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, while none was examined on behalf of the defence. The defence was a plea of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the accused that he was not present in the house at the relevant time and as such question of committing murder, as alleged by the prosecution, did not arise.
( 4 ) OUT of 9 prosecution witnesses PWs 1 to 4 were local persons and they were all post occurrence witnesses. PW 5 Smt. Etowary Tappo was sister of the deceased Juhuri. PW 6 Sunil Barla and PW 7 Basanti Barla were the son and married daughter respectively of the victim Juhuri and accused Noyel Barla. PW 8 was the investigating officer of the case and PW 9 was the Autopsy surgeon who held post mortem on the dead body of the victim.
( 5 ) PWS 1 to 4 stated in their evidence that after hearing the hue and cry in the house of Noyel Barla they rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Juhuri Barla, wife of accused noyel, lying in Courtyard with bleeding injury on her neck. PWs 1 and 2 further stated that accused Noyel Barla was gheraoed by some villagers in the house of one Lakshman Hindwaro. Police arrested accused Noyel from the house of Lakshman and the weapon of assault, namely 'jhurni' was recovered from that place. Police seized 'jhurni' under a seizure list, in which PWs 1 and 2 put their signatures. PW3 jugal Ming was a man of the locality and he stated in his evidence that hearing a 'hullah' he went to the place of occurrence and came to know that Noyel Barla committed murder of his wife. He also found the dead body of Juhuri. Police arrived at the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body and PW 3 put his signature on the inquest report. PW 4 Shivraj Tappo was brother of victim Juhuri and he stated that after hearing the hue and cry he went to the house of accused Noyel and found the dead body of Juhuri lying in the Courtyard. On interrogation he came to know from the local people that Noyel left his house after murdering his wife Juhuri Barla. PW 5 Smt. Etowary Tappo, wife of PW 4, stated in her evidence that on the relevant night Santi, daughter of victim Juhuri, came to her house and told that her father fled away after murdering her mother Juhuri.
( 6 ) PW 6 Sunil Barla, one of the sons of the victim and the accused, was the maker of the FIR. He stated in his evidence that at the relevant time his mother Juhuri was busy in preparing food along with his younger sister Santi and younger brother Anil. Santi shouted "mere fello, mere fello" and immediately thereafter he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
