SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Cal) 392

High Court Of Calcutta
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.
Ajoy Pramanick : Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal : Respondent
C.R.A. No.60 of 2004 C.R.A. No.61 of 2004
Decided On : Apr 12, 2010

Advocates Appeared:
Arunendu Sekhar Roy, Om Prakash Dubey, Pinaki Bhattacharya, Ashimesh Goswami, Subir Ganguly, Rupa Bandhyapadhaya

The court reiterated the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of evidence in criminal trials, particularly with regard to the use of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/34 IPC AND SECTIONS 25 AND 27 OF THE ARMS ACT - MURDER - FIR - DELAY - WITNESSES - IDENTIFICATION - MOTIVE - STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 164 - RELIABILITY - CONVICTION - UPHELD.

Fact of the Case:

Two brothers Biswa Pramanick and Bhuban Pramanick were shot dead by their cousins Ashutosh Pramanick, Debu Pramanick, Ajay Pramanick, Jhantu Pramanick, and Jagannath Pramanick over a dispute related to the sale of country liquor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the eyewitness accounts of the incident, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the motive for the crime.

Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was lodged in violation of Section 154-157 of the Criminal Procedure Code? 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged discrepancy in the FIR vitiated the trial? 3. Whether the witnesses could identify the accused in the twilight? 4. Whether the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be used to corroborate the prosecution case? 5. Whether the motive for the crime was proved?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR was not lodged in violation of Section 154-157 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the delay in lodging the FIR did not vitiate the trial. 2. The court held that the witnesses could identify the accused in the twilight as they were known to each other and the incident happened on a summer day when there was sufficient light. 3. The court held that the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be used to corroborate the prosecution case, but it could not be used as substantive evidence. 4. The court held that the motive for the crime was proved by the prosecution witnesses.

Final Decision: The appeals of the accused were dismissed, and they were directed to serve out the remainder of their sentences.

JUDGMENT:

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.

1. VICTIM Biswa Pramanick and Bhuban Pramanick are brothers. At all material times they carried on business of country liquor from their house. The accused Ashutosh Pramanick, Debu Pramanick, Ajay Pramanick, Jhantu Pramanick, Jagannath Pramanick were their cousins. Over the sale of country liquor, there had been alterations with the customers. The customers also, under the influence of liquor, used to spoil the toilet belonging to the accused. On that score, there had been altercation between the accused and the victims. Angurbala, the mother of the accused and Aunt of the victim lodged a complaint with the police station on the day previous to the date of the unfortunate incident. We, however, do not find any incident of altercation either between the customers and victims or between the accused and the victims on the fateful day.

2. INCIDENT : On the evening of May 18, 1998 Biswa was taking tea at the Tea Stall of Bimal Gharami. Biswa was watching Janmabhumi in Doordarshan, being played in the television set of Bimal in his house, through the window. Soon thereafter, Biswa left the shop for his house. Within a short while he came back and started gossiping with Jugal (PW-5) in front of the tea stall of Bimal. At about 7:00/7:30 p.m., Ashu, Ajoy, Dasu and others came to the spot and fired at Biswa. As per the written complaint made by Gour, brother of the victims, Ashu, Dasu and Ajoy shot Biswa from the pipe gun, they were carrying. The lady folks of the house including Gour came to his rescue when they threatened to kill Gour also. Bimal saved Gour by guarding him and then made a passage for Gour through his house. The accused then shot Bhuban while he was coming out of his house.

F.I.R. : Gour lodged the written complaint at 11:55 p.m. as would appear from the endorsement of Tilzala Police Station having its camp at Bainchtala (Dakshin). The evidence further reveals that Rama, wife of Biswa along with her daughter went to the house of one Pradip Mandal and therefrom made a phone call to the Police Station. The local MLA also made a phone call to the Police Station. The telephonic message so received and recorded by the Police was tendered in evidence.

3. CHARGES : Ashutosh Pramanik, Dasu Pramanik, Ajoy Pramanik, Jagnnath Pramanik, Bhanu Pramanik and Biswa Nath Baidya were arrested and they were chargesheeted by the Police, inter alia, for killing Biswa Pramanik and Bhuban Pramanik by using firearms and thereby committing offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded innocence and faced trial.

4. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE : Altogether twenty-seven witnesses deposed before the Trial Judge. PW-1 (Gour Pramanick) : Gour Pramanik, the younger brother of the victims was saved by Bimal (PW- 6). Gour almost corroborated what he had stated in his written complaint before the Police. According to Gour, Biswa and himself were taking tea at the tea stall of Bimal. At about 7:00/7:30 p.m. he left the tea stall. When he was proceeding to his house he heard some sound of firing at his back. On hearing the sound he rushed to the spot and found two successive firing being made to Biswa. He could not come to his rescue as they threatened him. Bimal intervened and guarded him. After firing at Biswa, while leaving the place they met Bhuban on the way. They also fired at him. Out of fear Gour took shelter in the shop. Thereafter, he went to the thana and reported the matter. The Police came and made investigation. The Police took him as well as Gopal Mondal to thana. Gopal wrote the complaint as per his dictation. He then came back to his house. He identified all the accused on dock. During cross-examination he deposed that for about two hours the Police had consultation with him and Gopal. Thereafter the complaint was written. In his deposition he admitted that Biswa was selling country liquor at his residence and, very often, disturbance t
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top