Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 312
High Court Of Calcutta
Debi Prasad Sengupta, Prabhat Kumar Dey, JJ.
Mokab Ali : Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal : Respondent
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.R.A. No. 111 of 2000
Decided On : March 24,2010
Sekhar Basu, Debabrata Roy, Ayan Basu, Antarikhya Basu, A.Goswamy, Subir Ganguly
In a murder case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If there are inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence, and if there are defects in the investigation, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - EYEWITNESSES - INCONSISTENCY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INQUEST - FIR - DELAY - INVESTIGATION - DEFECTS - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - APPEAL ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was that the deceased Abdur Rahaman was ploughing his land when the accused appellants armed with weapons attacked and killed him. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Inquest was held before the registration of FIR, there was an unexplained delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate, the eyewitnesses did not mention the names of the accused in the Inquest report, the ocular version of the eyewitnesses did not fit in with the medical evidence, and there were inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the Inquest was held before the registration of FIR? 2. Whether there was an unexplained delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate? 3. Whether the eyewitnesses mentioned the names of the accused in the Inquest report? 4. Whether the ocular version of the eyewitnesses fit in with the medical evidence? 5. Whether there were inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt due to the following reasons: 1. Inquest was held before the registration of FIR. 2. Unexplained delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate. 3. Eyewitnesses did not mention the names of the accused in the Inquest report. 4. Ocular version of the eyewitnesses did not fit in with the medical evidence. 5. Inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
DEBIPRASAD SENGUPTA, J.
1. THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.03.2000 and 16.03.2000 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Third Court, Suri, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 1 of March, 1998 thereby convicting the accused appellants under Section 148/302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code was passed.
2. THE prosecution case, in short, was that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Bilat Sk, the father of the deceased Abdur Rahaman, a case was registered with Labpur Police Station being P.S. Case No. 6 Dated 31.10.1983 alleging that in the morning of 31.10.1983, while Abdur Rahaman was ploughing his land, the accused appellants being armed with lathi, tangi, bomb, sword and bhojali thereby forming an unlawful assembly attacked Abdur Rahaman and started beating by tying him with a napkin. Abdur Rahaman was tied with a rope with the babla tree and was assaulted with the deadly weapons by the appellants. It was further alleged that Abdur Rahaman died at about 10 A.M. due to such injury and thereafter the accused persons fled away. The defacto complainant along with others rushed to the place of occurrence and found several injuries on his person.
Charge was framed under Sections 148/342/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 9B(ii) of the Indian Explosive Act against the accused appellants. The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 9B(ii) of the Indian Explosive Act, but was convicted under the sections as aforesaid.
3. THE defence case was of false implication out of enmity and that this case was filed as a counter blast of civil suit. It was the further defence that there was a free fight between the two groups headed by one Sahamat.
4. IN the present case, 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case and none was examined on behalf of the defence. P.W. 1, Fazlur Haque was the brother of the deceased and he stated in his evidence that he was ploughing the land adjacent to the land where Abdur Rahaman (deceased) was also ploughing. On hearing the shout he noticed that the accused appellants surrounded his brother Abdur Rahaman and started assaulting him. This witness after seeing such assault came back to his house and informed the matter to his family members. This witness along with his family members found that his brother was being assaulted. He along with his family members tried to approach to rescue his brother, but the accused persons threatened them by brandishing sword and bomb. He further stated that he went to Mayureswar Police Station from where he went to Labpur Police Station by bus. He again came to the place along with the police where the deadbody of Abdur Rahaman was kept. He also proved the signature of his father in the complaint on the basis of which the first information was lodged.
P.W. 2 was a seizure list witness in respect of the seizure of weapons from the house of the appellant, Siraj.
5. P.W. 3 is the sister of deceased Abdur Rahaman and she deposed that on the date of incident in the morning she heard a sound of bomb and she came out of her house and found that his brother Abdur Rahaman was tied with a rope with a babla tree. She also found that the appellants were assaulting his brother by sword, dagger, lathi, axe etc. causing bleeding injuries on his person. P.W. 4 is another sister of the deceased Abdur Rahaman and she stated in her evidence that on being informed she came out of her house and found the accused persons assaulting her brother with blunt side of sword, dagger, axe, iron rod, sabals etc. after tying him with
