Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 589
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KALIDAS MUKHERJEE & MD. ABDUL GHANI
Golam Gaus & Another
Versus
The State of West Bengal
CRA NO. 338 OF 1998
Decided On : 28-04-2011
For the Appellants:Sekhar Basu, Ms. Rupa Bandopadhyay, Sourav Chatterjee, Ayan Basu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Amlanjyoti Sengupta, Advocate.
The court reiterated that minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses do not necessarily render their testimony unreliable, and that the place of occurrence can be established by circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Conviction and Sentence - Challenge - Appreciation of Evidence - Reliability of Witnesses - Discrepancies and Contradictions - Place of Occurrence - Medical Evidence - Section 313 Cr.P.C. Examination - Prejudice to Accused - Village Rivalry - Motive - Relation Witnesses - Irregularities in Framing Charges.
Fact of the Case:
Accused persons were convicted and sentenced for the murder of Ali Mahammad. The prosecution case was that the accused hurled bombs and stabbed the victim with a bhojali, causing fatal injuries. The defense challenged the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, pointing out discrepancies and contradictions in their statements, and argued that the place of occurrence was not established beyond doubt. They also contended that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove the cause of death and that the accused were not properly examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were reliable and that the discrepancies and contradictions in their statements were minor and could be ignored. The court also held that the place of occurrence was established by the evidence and that the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. The court further held that the accused were properly examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and that they suffered no prejudice as a result of any irregularities in the framing of charges.
Issues: 1. Reliability of prosecution witnesses. 2. Discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements. 3. Place of occurrence. 4. Medical evidence. 5. Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. Prejudice to accused due to irregularities in framing of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution witnesses were reliable, as their testimony was consistent and corroborated by other evidence. 2. The court held that the discrepancies and contradictions in the witness statements were minor and could be ignored, as they did not affect the overall credibility of the witnesses. 3. The court held that the place of occurrence was established by the evidence of the witnesses and that the accused's alibi was not credible. 4. The court held that the medical evidence supported the prosecution case, as it showed that the victim died from injuries consistent with being stabbed and hit with a bhojali. 5. The court held that the accused were properly examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and that they suffered no prejudice as a result of any irregularities in the framing of charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
MD. ABDUL GHANI, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17th September, 1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No.3 of 1997 corresponding to Sessions Case No.16 of 1997 sentencing thereby each of the two accused persons, namely, Golam Gous alias Mulu and Chand Mahammad alias Amir Chand to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 326 IPC.
The prosecution case, in short, may be delineated as follows: On 9th January, 1997 at about 5.50 p.m. one Allarekha (P.W.1) lodged an FIR with Rampurhat Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on the said date at about 2.30 p.m. while his nephew Ali Mahhammad was returning from Rampurhat to his house at Pathra and when he reached Ronguipur Haldi kandor Bridge, accused Golam Gous who was concealing himself in the nearest sugarcane field suddenly came out and hurled bombs aiming at Ali Mahammad and thus Ali Mahammad sustained bleeding injuries on his person and fell on the ground. The other accused Chand Mahammad then and there stabbed seriously injured Ali Mahammad with a bhojali on his back with a view to killing him. It has been alleged that at the sound of explosion of bomb, Yeajul Haque (P.W.5), Nayeem Ali (P.W.3), Oli Mahammad (P.W.2) and many others rushed to the place of occurrence but the accused persons fled away. Seriously injured Ali Mahammad told them about the incident Thereafter Ali Mahammad was shifted by a cot from the place of occurrence to Pratappur More wherefrom he was taken to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital by a rickshaw van. Ali Mahammad was, thus, admitted to Rampurhat S.D. Hospital where he succumbed to injuries on the night of the incident i.e. on 9th January, 1997 at about 8.20 p.m.
On the basis of the FIR (Ext.1) lodged by Allarekha (P.W.1) with Rampurhat Police Station, said Police Station Case No.4 dated 9th January, 1997 under Sections 326/307/34 IPC and 9B (2) of the Explosives Act was started, but due to demise of seriously injured Ali Mahammad, Section 302 IPC was added. Investigation was taken up by S.I Falguni Majhi (P.W.12) who on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 326/34 and 9B (2) of Explosives Act read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused persons.
It would be manifest from the record that the learned Trial Judge upon hearing the learned Counsel of both the parties and also giving due consideration to the materials-on-record framed charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 326/34 IPC and 9B(2) of Explosives Act, read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused persons. The said charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Learned Trial Judge after holding trial found both the accused persons guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and 326 IPC and sentenced them in the manner as aforesaid.
Hence this appeal.
Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while arguing the case drew our attention to the contents of the FIR (Ext.1), the charges framed against accused persons, their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C as also the evidence adduced by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5 and some other witnesses including Investigating Officer (P.W.12) and emphatically submitted that the learned Trial Judge while adjudicating the case failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the P.Ws. as also the appropriate position of law and thus caused miscarriage of justice by arriving at a wrong finding. In support of his contention, he urged that there is deviation of the evidence of P.W.1 from the contents of FIR (Ext.1), inasmuch as, P.W.1 did not see the incident. He has further submitted that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 being the relatives of the P.W.1 as also the victim, the oral testimony of aforesaid P.Ws. deserves no
