Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
ANIRUDDHA BOSE & SHIB SADHAN SADHU, JJ.
Hopna Soren
Versus
The State of West Bengal
C.R.A. No. 320 of 2002 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 03-12-2013
Hopna Soren was convicted for murdering Maiku Murmu under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The main legal point established is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, can be relied upon to establish guilt, even if there are minor discrepancies in their testimonies.
Fact of the Case:
Maiku Murmu was assaulted with a bamboo lathi and a spade by Hopna Soren while she was returning home with two pitchers of water. She sustained severe injuries and succumbed to her injuries on the way to the hospital. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the post-mortem report, and the inquest report to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, which were corroborated by the medical evidence and the post-mortem report. The court also found that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the accused had the intention to cause such injuries.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of eyewitnesses, even if there are minor discrepancies, can be relied upon to establish guilt. 2. Whether the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3. Whether the accused had the intention to cause such injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of eyewitnesses, even if there are minor discrepancies, can be relied upon to establish guilt, provided that the testimonies are consistent and credible. 2. The court held that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as per the medical evidence and the post-mortem report. 3. The court held that the accused had the intention to cause such injuries, as evidenced by the nature and gravity of the injuries and the weapon used.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.
1) The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Convict Hopna Soren being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Malda in Session Case No.101 of 1998(Sessions Trial No.47 of 2001) on 20.07.2002 holding the appellant/convict guilty and thereby convicting him for committing an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default R.I. for five months more.
2) A brief resume of the prosecution case emerging from the F.I.R. and evidence is that on 24.04.1991 at about 8.30 A.M. while the defacto complainant Lakshmiram Tudu was constructing his room’s wall, his co-villager Kulen Roy reported to him that Hopna Soren, son of Late Gobi Soren had assaulted Maiku Murmu, wife of Changu Soren. He then went to the place of occurrence along with Kulen and saw that Maiku Soren was lying on the ground in a pool of blood near the well in front of the house of Khokan Roy. Blood was oozing out from her forehead and nose. They then called the villagers and arranged for shifting the injured to hospital for treatment. In the mean time, the de-facto complainant came to learn from Mongli Soren, daughter of the injured Maiku Murmu that while Maiku was returning home carrying two pitchers full of water - one on her head and another in her armpit and when she reached near the house of Hopna Soren, he suddenly assaulted her with a bamboo lathi on her head. Maiku Soren fell down and the pitchers were broken. After that Hopna Soren took out a spade from his house. Seeing that Maiku Murmu attempted to run away towards the house of Khokan Roy when Hopna Soren assaulted her with the spade below her forehead and Maiku fell down sustaining bleeding injury. Thereafter, Hopna Soren fled away with the spade towards western field. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and the other villagers lifted Maiku Murmu in a cot and proceeded towards Gazole hospital for treatment. While they reached near Balarampur village, Maiku Murmu succumbed to her injuries.
3) The de facto complainant thereafter, lodged oral complaint on the basis of which Gazole P.S. Case No.30/91 dated 24.04.91 under Section 304 I.P.C. was started. That case was investigated into. During the course of investigation, on the prayer of the I.O., the charge was altered under Section 302 IPC in place of Section 304 IPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC against the accused/convict.
4) The Ld. Trial Judge on appearance of the accused and on perusal of the materials available on record including the police papers as well as upon hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties framed charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who however pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.
5) In the Trial Court in all 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The inquest report, two seizure lists, post mortem report, F.I.R., dead body challan and sketch map were admitted into evidence on behalf of the prosecution and were marked Exhibits 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7 respectively and the signatures of the witnesses appearing on those documents were marked accordingly.
6) The Ld. Trial Court proceeded with the trial and after considering all the evidence led by the prosecution including oral testimonies of the eye witnesses and other supporting oral as well as the documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the charge levelled against the present accused/appellant and accordingly recorded his conviction as aforesaid by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2002. Hence the present appeal.
7) The accused/appellant has challenged the sustainability of the impugned judgment mainly on the following grounds:-
a) That the Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in i
AI
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
