Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair)
GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA & DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Shankar Narayan
Versus
The State
CRA No. 016 of 2012
Decided On : 17-12-2013
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - RELIABILITY - CORROBORATION - MOTIVE - PREMEDITATION - INTENTION TO KILL - SENTENCING - LIFE IMPRISONMENT - APPROPRIATENESS.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a policeman, was convicted of the murder of his father-in-law and the attempted murder of his wife and a household servant. The prosecution's case was based on the eyewitness testimony of the wife and the servant, who identified the accused as the assailant. The accused denied the charges and claimed that he was not at the scene of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness testimony of the wife and the servant was reliable and credible. The witnesses had a clear view of the accused and were able to identify him without hesitation. Their testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including the medical evidence and the evidence of the police officers who arrested the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitness testimony of the wife and the servant was reliable and credible. 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the eyewitness testimony of the wife and the servant was reliable and credible. The witnesses had a clear view of the accused and were able to identify him without hesitation. Their testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including the medical evidence and the evidence of the police officers who arrested the accused. 2. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The eyewitness testimony of the wife and the servant was corroborated by other evidence, including the medical evidence and the evidence of the police officers who arrested the accused. 3. The court held that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate. The accused had committed a brutal and premeditated murder and had shown no remorse for his crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, passed in Sessions Case No.13 of 2010 connected with Sessions Trial No.12 of 2011 (The State Vs. Shankar Narayan) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, convicting the sole accused of the offences punishable under sections 307/436/506- II/427/429/324 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 18.06.2012 the learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a month; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 324 I.P.C; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under section 363 I.P.C., in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a month; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 436 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a month; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under section 429 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 427 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under section 506 Part-II IPC and further directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.two lakhs to the defacto complainant and a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the injured Vishnu Das, in default liberty was given to them to put the order for payment of compensation into execution by taking steps as per procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:-
The accused Shankar Narayan, a policeman, was married to Smti.Sivagami Laxmi (PW.8). The accused was in the habit of gambling. He was provided with a motorcycle for the discharge of his official duties. He mortgaged the motorcycle. Departmental proceedings in the circumstances were initiated against him but he was treated with leniency and was transferred to Restcamp at Mayabunder. The accused did not however change his ways. In the year 2002, he stole a rifle from the office and escaped to Chennai. He was brought back to Port Blair and proceeded against. He remained in jail for sometime. Ever since his marriage or soon after he started assaulting his wife. As a result, she in the year 2008 came back to her paternal house with her minor child known as Ajith. Her father was not at home for some time due to his eye operation. The accused started insisting upon his wife to resume co-habitation, to which she was not agreeable. Enraged by her reluctance the accused assaulted her black and blue and also inflicted injuries with a dah (sharp weapon). She, it appears, was in the hospital for her treatment for quite a long time exceeding 20 days. She lodged a complaint with the police. While the case was under investigation under various stages, the accused started pressurizing her and her near relations for the withdrawal of the case, to which she was not agreeable. This enraged the accused further.
In the midnight of 25th/26th December, 2009 the accused intruded into the paternal house of his wife. Vishnu Das (PW.25), a household servant of the defacto complainant was at that time in the Kela Bagicha (Banana Orchard) adjacent to the house of the defacto complainant. Alerted by the barking of dogs he switched on his torch and saw some one hiding. He demanded disclosure of identity. The accused then came forward and dealt severe blows by the dah in his hand. PW.25 naturally screamed for help. The defacto complainant (PW.1), the father-in-law of the accused from inside wanted to know as to what had happened. He opened the door. The accused, as soon as the door was opened, started dealing blows upon the defacto complainant. Rest of the members of the family woke u
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
