Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBI PRASAD SENGUPTA, PRABHAT KUMAR DEY, JJ.
Gopal Neogi - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
Appeal No : C.R.A. No. 231 of 2006
Decided On : Jan 19, 2010
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Together - Motive - Deceased last seen with accused - Motive of extramarital affair - Chain of circumstances complete - Conviction upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife and daughter. The prosecution case was that the appellant had an illicit relationship with another woman, which caused a dispute between him and his wife. The appellant and his wife were last seen together on the day of the murder, when they told witnesses that they were going to visit their aunt. The next day, the bodies of the appellant's wife and daughter were found in a field. The appellant was found in the village and told witnesses that his wife and daughter would return in a few days. The appellant never made any attempt to search for his wife and daughter. A jute bag and sari, which were taken from the house of witnesses, were recovered from the side of the dead bodies and were identified by the witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the witnesses who saw the appellant and the deceased together on the day of the murder was credible and reliable. The court also found that the appellant had a motive to kill his wife, as he was having an extramarital affair. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and that the appellant was the only person who could have committed the murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge framed in the present case was vague and prejudicial to the accused? 2. Whether the evidence of last seen together by itself is of much significance to prove the guilt of the accused? 3. Whether the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and whether such evidence satisfied the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court? 4. Whether there was any motive in the present case and whether in absence of motive, the prosecution case should be disbelieved?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The charge framed in the present case was not vague and prejudicial to the accused, as it was based on circumstantial evidence and it was not possible to give any specific date and time of the murder. 2. The evidence of last seen together is of significance in the present case, as the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the time when the deceased was found dead was so small that it suggests that there is no possibility of any person other than the accused to be the author of the crime. 3. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and such evidence satisfied the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the circumstances from which an inference of guilt was sought to be drawn were cogently and firmly established, those circumstances were of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, formed a chain so complete that there was no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction was complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. 4. There was a motive in the present case, as the accused had an illicit relationship with another woman, which caused a dispute between him and his wife.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.
DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J.
1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2004 and 17.07.2004 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 60 of 2002 thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused appellant was also convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in short, was that on 2.7.1998 the accused appellant went out of his village with his wife Lakshmi and daughter Mamata saying that they would go to their aunts house at Polba. On 3.7.1998 in the morning the accused appellant was found in the village at his residence and on being asked he told that he left his wife Lakshmi and daughter Mamata in his aunts house at Polba. On 3.7.1998 at about 11.00 A.M. one beheaded deadbody of a lady and one deadbody of female child were found lying in the vacant field in Ichhapur Mouza within the jurisdiction of Haripal Police Station. Having received such information police arrived at the place of occurrence and started investigation. During investigation a severed head was also recovered from the side of the railway track bush. Subsequently the deadbodies were identified as deadbodies of Lakshmi Mondal and Mamata Mondal. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses including the Autopsy Surgeon and the Investigating Officer of the case and none was examined on behalf of the defence. The defence was a plea of innocence and of false implication. P.W. 1, Nilmony Chatterjee was the informant in the present case. He found a deadbody of a lady without head lying in the field and at a distance from the said deadbody the deadbody of a minor girl was also found lying. He gave a written complaint to the police, which was scribed by his nephew as per his dictation. He further deposed that three days after the recovery of the said beheaded deadbody a severed head was recovered from the side of the railway track bush. From the said place a jute bag containing some wearing apparels were also recovered. Inquest was held over the deadbody without any head and he signed the inquest report. P.W. 2, Prolay Chatterjee was nephew of P.W. 1 and he was the scribe of the FIR. He was also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the deadbody. P.W. 3 was also a witness to the inquest of the deadbodies. P.W. 4 was a witness to the inquest of the severed head, which was found by the side of the railway track. P.W. 5, Subir Santra was a witness to the inquest of the headless deadbody and the deadbody of the minor girl. P.W. 7 was one Alok Kumar Malik. He stated in his evidence that the accused appellant Gopal after the death of his first wife married Lakshmi @ Kinu (the victim). He also stated that the first wife of the accused appellant was murdered. It was his further deposition that the accused had an illicit relation with the wife of one Haru belonging to his village and because of such extramarital affair there was a dispute between the accused appellant and his wife Lakshmi. He stated that six years back in the month of Ashar Lakshmi went to his house and took one jute bag and one sari from his wife. The accused appellant and the minor daughter Mamata was also found with Lakshmi at that time and the accused stated that they were going to Polba to their aunts house. He further stated that on the following day he found the accused appellant Gopal in his village and on being asked he stated that his wife and daughter would return after 4/5 days. It is in
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
