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

2013 Supreme(Cal) 193

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ASHIM KUMAR ROY & SUBAL BAIDYA, JJ.
The State of West Bengal & Another
Versus
Sagar Das @ Gadai & Another
C.R.A. No. 104 of 2013
Decided on : 03-05-2013

Appearing Advocates:
For the Appellants:J.N. Chatterjee, Debapriya Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P., Shamsher Ali, Advocate.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must form a complete chain and must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

RAPE & MURDER - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Events - Last Seen Theory - Incriminating Circumstances - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Mitigating Circumstances - Death Sentence Converted to Life Imprisonment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Sagar Das @ Gadai, was convicted under Sections 302/376/201 of the Indian Penal Code for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. The Trial Court sentenced him to death for murder and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 2 years for rape.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court upheld the conviction but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court found that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by reliable and clinching evidence. The Court also found that the appellant had not come out with an explanation as to how and under what circumstances the victim was found killed within a short interval after they were found together.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 2. Whether the case fell within the purview of rarest of rare cases warranting the death penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must form a complete chain and must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 2. The "last seen theory" comes into play where the time gap between when the accused and the deceased were last seen together and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any other person being the author of the crime becomes impossible. 3. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain how and under what circumstances the victim was killed, and in the absence of an explanation, such non-explanation can be considered a strong incriminating circumstance against the accused. 4. In determining whether a case falls within the purview of rarest of rare cases warranting the death penalty, the Court must consider mitigating circumstances that may justify the imposition of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment.

Final Decision: The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Judgment :-

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.

1. In a Sessions trial held before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour, 24 Parganas (South) the appellant Sagar Das @ Gadai was convicted under Sections 302/376/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court for his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code passed a sentence of death. Simultaneously, he was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine with default clause for his conviction under Sections 376/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the Death Reference for confirmation of sentence of death and the criminal appeal in which the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence are arising out of selfsame judgment and order, both are taken up for hearing together.

2. Going through the materials on record we find the prosecution case goes like this; May 8, 2011 was the day of immersion of goddess Kali, worshiped at the house of the de facto complainant Prohlad Sardar (PW/1). On the occasion of the said Kali Puja the appellant Sagar Das @ Gadai, who happened to be the son-in- law of the elder brother of the de facto complainant and their other relations had been to his house. On the day of immersion, at about 9/9.30 p.m., the appellant took away with him the victim girl aged about 12 years, the daughter of the PW/1 for purchasing ‘Abir’ from Saharar Hat. At around 11 p.m. on that night the appellant returned home alone and being asked by the PW/1 and his wife PW/2, they were given to understand by him that their daughter would return shortly from Saharar Hat and towards van fare Rs. 5/- has been given to her. Since she was not returning home, the inmates of the house with the help of the villagers started searching and finally her body was found in a completely naked condition inside a bush situated at the garden of Palui. She was immediately removed to the hospital and was declared brought dead but in the meantime the appellant fled away. On the next day the incident was reported to the local police station and a FIR was registered against the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/376/201 IPC and he was arrested. During postmortem the Autopsy Surgeon, PW/23 found multiple injuries on her person and even on her genitals and opined the death was due to the effects of manual strangulation which were antemortem and homicidal in nature associated with evidence of sexual assault.

3. The case of the prosecution completely rests on circumstantial evidence and prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. Whereas defence examined none and it appears from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses and from the answers given by the appellant against the questions put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC that allegations were false, he was innocent and the de facto complainant took a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from him as a loan and that was the day for repayment of the loan, but instead thereof he has been falsely implicated in the case.

4. The following circumstances have been relied on by the prosecution during trial against the appellant to prove his guilt:

(i) The victim was killed by manual strangulation after being forcibly raped.

(ii) The day of the incident was the day of immersion of the goddess Kali, worshiped at the house of the PW/1 and when arrangement for immersion was on the process, the appellant took the victim out on the pretext of purchasing ‘Abir’ from Saharar Hat.

(iii) According to the PW/2 the mother of the victim girl, at around 9/9.30 p.m. both the appellant and the victim girl left together for Saharar Hat.

(iv) The PW/4 Shila Jana and PW/6 Namita Sardar, who are the neigh bours of PW/1 at around 10/10.30 p.m. found her with the appellant, going towards Saharar Hat in a van.

(v) The appellant, however, returned home at around 11 p.m., when the appellant was bare footed, but the victim girl was not with him and being aske








































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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