Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
AMARESH ROY AND N. C. TALUKDAR, JJ.
Bhulakiram Koiri - Appellant
v.
The State - Respondent
Death Ref. No. 3 of 1967, Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 1967
Decided on: 23-2-1968
CRIMINAL - REFERENCE - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - INSUFFICIENT TO CONNECT ACCUSED WITH CRIME - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant and the deceased were friends and co-employees. The deceased had taken a loan from the accused-appellant but did not repay the same despite repeated demands. The accused-appellant became sore and threatened to take action. On the night of the murder, the accused-appellant and the deceased had some snacks and wine at a hotel near the factory where they worked. Thereafter, they left the hotel premises and were joined by another person. They all went near a dhobi ghat where the accused-appellant and the other person gave the fatal blows and the deceased was thrown into a jhil. The body was found the following morning and the accused-appellant was arrested. He made certain statements to the police which were recorded. The accused-appellant led the police to a pond where he pointed out a place from which a dagger was recovered.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the corpus delicti had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of identification of the body was unreliable. The motive ascribed by the prosecution was not established. The trial had been vitiated by the reception of inadmissible evidence, including the post-mortem report, the accused-appellant's extra-judicial confession, and the evidence of the footprint expert. The evidence of the footprint expert was not sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. The chain of circumstances as established by the prosecution was not complete and left reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the corpus delicti had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the motive ascribed by the prosecution was established. 3. Whether the trial had been vitiated by the reception of inadmissible evidence. 4. Whether the evidence of the footprint expert was sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. 5. Whether the chain of circumstances as established by the prosecution was complete and left no reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the corpus delicti had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt because the evidence of identification of the body was unreliable. 2. The court held that the motive ascribed by the prosecution was not established because there was no evidence that the accused-appellant had threatened to kill the deceased or that he had a motive to do so. 3. The court held that the trial had been vitiated by the reception of inadmissible evidence, including the post-mortem report, the accused-appellant's extra-judicial confession, and the evidence of the footprint expert. 4. The court held that the evidence of the footprint expert was not sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime because the expert's opinion was based on probabilities and not on firm conviction. 5. The court held that the chain of circumstances as established by the prosecution was not complete and left reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant because there were gaps in the evidence and the circumstances were not wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused-appellant.
N. C. TALUKDAR, J. :- This is a Reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dated the 7th March, 1967 from Sri D.C. Chakraborti, Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him on the accused-appellant Bhulakiram Koiri alias Bhulai, who has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while the co-accused Probhuram Pashi alias Probhua was acquitted of the said charge, in Sessions Trial Case No. 1 of January, 1967. The accused-appellant also has preferred an appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence.
2. The prosecution case which brings to light the unfortunate case of a spited friend, can be put in a short compass. The accused-appellant Bhulakriam and the deceased Musafir Singh were friends and co-employees under Messrs. Guest, Keen, Williams Ltd. at Shibpur, Hawrah, Musafir was rather extravagant in nature and used to touch his friends for loans. Musafir had occasion to take loan from the accused-appellant Bhulakiram but did not repay the same in spite of repeated damands. Bhulakiram became sore and threatened to take action. He is said to have observed that though there was friendship, there would be a fight some day. On the 22nd November, 1965, after the night-shift was over at the factory of Messrs. Cuest, Keen, Williams Ltd., Bhulakiram took Musafir to the hotel of P.W. 9, Curmit Singh near the said factory and they had some snacks and also some wine, which they had brought along with themselves. Thereafter they left the hotel premises and on the way were joined by the co-accused Probhuram Pashi alias Probhua. Together they proceeded to the betel and cigarette shop of P.W. 11, Ganga Prosad Gupta. The said shop is opposite to the gate of Guest, Keen, Williams Ltd. After purchasing some betel and cigarettes they left. Near about the said shop lived one Mantu Sarkar, the brother of P.W. 17, Jatindra Chandra Sarkar and he also joined the party. Mantu Sarkar however, is still absconding. They all went near the Dhobi ghat where Bhulaki and Mantu gave the fatal blows and Probhua assisted them. When Musafir was considered to be dead, the body was thrown into the jhil and the party thereafter left the place. A natural commotion followed from the finding of the body in the jhil on the following morning. Ganga Prosad Gupta, P.W. 11, out of curiosity went to see the dead body and found the deceased to the companion of the above-mentioned Probhua and Bhulakiram whom he knew before and he reported about his knowledge to P.W. 2, Narayan Shaw, who is his father-in-law. P.W. 2, has a grocery shop near about the place and he also in his turn, when he met Probhua near his shop on the 24th November, 1965 at about noon time, questioned him as to whether the latter knew about the said murder. Probhua is alleged to have made a confessional statement, whereby he implicated himself as well as the co-accused Bhulakiram and Mantu, to the said Narayan Shaw and was taken to the place of a resident of the locality viz.' P.W. 22, Sudhangshu Ganguly, who is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation Calcutta and a Deputy Group-Commandant of the Howrah Home Guard. When taken to his place, Probhua repeated his confessional statement and thereafter the said Sudhangshu Ganguly tried to contact the O. C. of the Shibpur police station but failed and then contacted P.W. 30, Bidhu Shusan Bhowmick, the Circle Inspector of Police, Howrah and took Probhua and Naryan Shaw to his quarters. After reporting to him as to what he had learnt, Sudhangshu Ganguly placed Probhua and Narayan Shaw in his charge. The Circle Inspector thereafter contacted the O. C. of Shibpur police station and S.I. Nihar Ranjan Chatterjee, (P.W. 28), came to his residence for investigation. Probhua was arrested at the house of the Circle Inspector and it is said that he made certain statements which were recorded by the said S.I. Nihar Ranjan Chatterjee
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
