Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 670
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
NISHITA MHATRE & SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, JJ.
Bablu Mallick
Versus
The State of West Bengal
C.R.A. No. 264 of 2004 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 19-11-2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant:Anasuya Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that points to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - ACQUITTAL - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - MOTIVE - PLACE OF OCCURRENCE - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - ABSENCE OF CORROBORATION - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - REASONABLE DOUBT
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his brother-in-law, Khokon Mallick, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's alleged motive, the recovery of the murder weapon, and his absconding after the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the motive for the murder was not established, the place of occurrence was not clearly identified, the recovery of the murder weapon was not genuine, and the appellant's absconding could not be used to infer his guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the appellant's motive for the murder. 2. Whether the place of occurrence was clearly identified. 3. Whether the recovery of the murder weapon was genuine. 4. Whether the appellant's absconding could be used to infer his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant's motive for the murder. The court noted that the appellant's father was the only witness who spoke of the hostility between the appellant and the deceased, but that the deceased's wife and brother had not mentioned this in their statements. 2. The court held that the place of occurrence was not clearly identified. The court noted that the charge sheet did not specify the exact location of the murder, and that the sketch map showed the body lying close to the shallow pump of a third party. 3. The court held that the recovery of the murder weapon was not genuine. The court noted that the investigating officer's account of the recovery was contradicted by the other witnesses, and that the time of the recovery was uncertain. 4. The court held that the appellant's absconding could not be used to infer his guilt. The court noted that the appellant was not named in the FIR or the inquest report, and that there was no evidence that he was seen in the village before the incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Judge, Special Court cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2003 dated 21st February, 2004. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only); in default of payment of fine the appellant has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. A complaint was lodged on 13th March, 2001 by Uttam Mallick stating that his brother Khokon Mallick had been killed while he was sleeping in the paddy field on 12th March, 2001. The complainant mentions that Khokon and Binode Roy used to water the paddy field and at night they slept in a hut on the field. At 2.00 a.m. on 13th March, 2001, Binode found that Khokon was not present in the hut. He then went near the shallow pump near the hut and saw Khokon lying there with his throat slit. Binode Roy then called out to Motilal Hembram who resided on the other bank of the pond. Motilal Hembram and Binode then informed the members of the family of Khokon about his death. The complaint was sent on 20th March, 2001 to the SDJM, seven days after the FIR was registered.
3. The appellant was arrested about six months after the death of Khokan although he was not named in the complaint as the assailant. The inquest was conducted on the same day at about 9.00 a.m. The description of the dead body and the injuries sustained have been mentioned in the inquest report. From a primary investigation it was mentioned that the body was found lying near the shallow machine which belonged to Chittaranjan Ghosh. The preliminary investigation did not indicate that the appellant was the assailant.
4. The prosecution has attempted to prove its case by examining 12 witnesses. PW 2 Binode Roy has stated that he found Khokon absent in the hut at about 2.30 a.m. on 13th March, when he awoke. He searched for him and found him lying near the shallow machine. He claimed that he called out to the appellant who resided a short distance away from the shallow pump because the appellant Bablu was the brother-in-law of the deceased. Bablu was not present and his house was locked. The witness states that he informed Motilal Hembram about the death of Khokon. PW 3, Motilal Kenbram has corroborated the version of PW 2. Both PWs 2 and 3 then informed PW 1, Khokon’s brother of the incident.
5. PW 4 is a villager residing in the same village. He was informed by Motilal Hembram, PW 3, about the death of Khokon. He claims to have reached the place of occurrence and then searched for Bablu, the appellant herein. He speaks of Bablu’s house being locked. According to this witness, there was a dispute over landed property between Bablu and Khokon. He was a witness to the recovery of Bagi, allegedly at the instance of the appellant which was used to slit the victim’s throat. It was found in the Asapasa Pukur (pond). According to this witness, the recovery was made at about 9 p.m. when he saw the appellant being taken towards the village after his arrest.
6. PW 8 is also a witness to the seizure of the Bagi.
7. PW 5, a vegetable vendor claims that he used to sell vegetables at Saspur market and he met Bablu there. According to him, Bablu had a house there. The witness claimed that Bablu revealed to him that he had murdered his brother-in-law and that the police were searching for him. This witness conceded that he had not informed the police about the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Bablu to him and that he had mentioned this fact for the first time in Court.
8. PW 6 has been declared hostile although he had stated initially that he found the dead body of Khokon lying near the pump machine.
9. PW 7 is the wife of the deceased and the sister of the appellant. She has not spoken of any enmity between her husband and her brother. However, she has st
