Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 733
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
TAPEN SEN & ARIJIT BANERJEE, JJ.
Haren Mondal
Versus
The State of West Bengal
CRA. No. 24 of 2006 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 20-11-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Anjan Bhattacharya, Advocate, Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent:Madhusudan Sur, Advocate.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of the accused from the scene of the crime and the fracture of the hyoid bone can raise a presumption of guilt under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act, which the accused must rebut.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 106 AND 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - APPELLANT'S ABSENCE FROM THE SCENE OF CRIME AND FRACTURE OF HYOID BONE - BURDEN OF EXPLANATION - CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT - INFERENCE OF GUILT - AFFIRMATION OF CONVICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had strangled his wife and then set her on fire. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was not present at the scene of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's absence from the scene of the crime and the fracture of the hyoid bone raised a presumption of guilt under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. The court also considered the appellant's conduct, including his failure to explain his absence and his evasive answers during the trial, as further evidence of his guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant's absence from the scene of the crime and the fracture of the hyoid bone raised a presumption of guilt under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. 3. Whether the appellant's conduct, including his failure to explain his absence and his evasive answers during the trial, could be considered as further evidence of his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's absence from the scene of the crime, the fracture of the hyoid bone, and his conduct, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the appellant's absence from the scene of the crime and the fracture of the hyoid bone raised a presumption of guilt under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act, which the appellant failed to rebut.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Tapen Sen, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Case No. 218/2002 (Sessions Trial No.17 of 2003) whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for offences under Section 498(A)/302 of the Indian Panel Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) more months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Panel Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 (two) more months for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Panel Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Upon a perusal of the written report and the FIR, it is evident that Kaliachak P.S. Case No.107 dated 27.03.2002 under Sections 498(A)/302 was initiated on the basis of a written report of one Anjali Mondal, mother of the deceased Dhrita Mondal (Mousumi) against the appellant Haren Mondal. In the written report she alleged that her daughter aged about 20 (twenty) years was married to Haren Mondal on 04.09.2001 and at the time of marriage, she had paid Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a motorcycle and a television set. She had also given 2.5 ‘bharies’ of gold, a cot etc. as dowry. She alleged that after marriage, her daughter resided in the house of her husband but after about 2 (two) months from the marriage, her son-in-law started beating her daughter on lame excuses. This was informed by the daughter to her mother. Subsequently, the complainant came to learn from different sources that the character of her sonin-law Haren Mondal (appellant) was not good and in the past, he had a history of seducing another girl and then torturing her.
It was further alleged that on 27.3.2002, at 5 P.M., one Atul Mandal of Village Fatepur came and told her and her son that their Jamai (appellant) had beaten her daughter to such an extent that she was “half dead”. Subsequently, one Ranjit Mandal of their village informed her that her daughter Dhrita was lying dead and in a burnt condition in the house of her husband. Hearing such news she and her son Achintya Mandal and other villagers went to the house and found the daughter lying dead in a burnt condition and also noticed that the appellant had fled away from the house. According to the complainant the appellant had killed her daughter after setting her on fire.
On receiving the petition of complaint, the Kaliachak Police Station registered the aforesaid case and took up investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet under Sections 498(A)/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Thereafter the learned SDJM, Malda committed the case to the Court of Sessions whereafter charges were framed, explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter trial proceeded and subsequently the impugned judgment was passed.
We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances involved in this case. Upon a perusal of the post mortem report we notice that the following injuries were found :-
1. Lacerated wound (ante mortem) - 1” X ¼” - muscle deep at left cheek.
2. Lacerated wound (ante mortem) - ¾” X ½” - skin deep on the anterior upper chest.
3. Haematoma - 2” X 1” on the anterior upper chest wall.
4. Second to fourth degree burns all over the body, which was blackened with superficial layer of skin lost at places. No blisters were found but there were signs of burning and singing of scalp hairs, eye brows, eye lashes, auxiliary and pubic hairs were burnt and they were post mortem in nature. The injuries further recorded that there was subcutaneous echymosis on the anterior portion of the neck, which was ante mortem in nature. The neck muscle was congested. Tracheal rings was crushed. The hyoid bone was fracture
