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

2016 Supreme(Cal) 356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Debasish Kar Gupta and Md. Mumtaz Khan, JJ.

Asraf Biswas - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondents
CRA No. 840 of 2013 with CRA No. 892 of 2013
Decided On : 11-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sekhar Basu, Mr. Robiul Islam, Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Mr. Biswajit Manna
For the de facto complainant : Mr. Shahan Shah
For the State : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury

The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, such as failure to mention important details in the inquest reports and inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR, can cast doubt on the prosecution's case and result in the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1973 - Section 302/34 - The appellants were convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with punishment for murder. The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and found significant infirmities, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were quashed.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the murder of two victims. The prosecution claimed that the appellants hurled a bomb at the victims, resulting in their death. The appellants raised objections regarding the delay in forwarding the FIR, contradictions in the evidence, and doubts about the place of occurrence. The Court found that the inquest reports did not mention the discovery of the bodies and that there was an inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR. The Court also noted contradictions in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence. Based on these infirmities, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were quashed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and the objections raised by the appellants. The Court found that there were significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, including the failure to mention the discovery of the bodies in the inquest reports and the inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR. The Court also noted contradictions in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence. Based on these infirmities, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, including the failure to mention the discovery of the bodies in the inquest reports and the inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR. The Court also noted contradictions in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were quashed.

Result: The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences of the appellants were quashed. The appellants were directed to be set at liberty unless required in any other case.

JUDGMENT :

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

1. Out of the aforesaid two appeals, the former one bearing CRA No.892 of 2013 is preferred by twelve (12) appellants and the later one bearing CRA No.840 of 2013 is preferred by one (1) appellant against a common judgment and order of conviction dated September 26, 2013 and sentence dated September 27, 2013, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Berhampur, District-Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 03 (09) 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 459 of 2003 convicting all the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default, each to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of five months.

2. According to the prosecution case, on June 20, 1998, at about 18.00 hours Md. Abdulla Mondal (deceased), son of Hazi Ali Rahaman Mondal and Islam Sk (deceased), son of Khoda Baks Sk of village-Dilalpur, Police Station-Hariharpara, District-Murshidabad, were returning home from Mamudpur Haat. After crossing Durlavpur Khal they reached near the house of one of the appellants Jahiruddin Molla. The aforesaid appellant hurled a bomb towards them. As a result, both of them fell down from their cycles. Appellants Asraf Biswas, Sajomoddin Biswas, Kalam Biswas started to assault them with “henso” and “pashli”. Both of the aforesaid victims sustained severe injuries on their bodies and succumbed to death at the place of occurrence. Imdadul Biswas, Fajil Sk., Jakir Sk., Sader Sk., Sahid Malikhya, Israil Sk., (appellants) Maharam Sk. and some other miscreants (all of Dilalpur) were also took part in the commission of offence. The villagers made attempt to resist them. The aforesaid assailants attacked them with deadly weapons like ballam, henso, bomb, fire arms, etc.

3. PW 1, full brother of Md. Abdulla Mondal (deceased) as also the cousin brother of Islam Mondal (deceased) arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of a bomb blast. According to the prosecution case, PW 6 is one of the eyewitnesses of the above incident. He informed the PW 1 of the entire incident of commission of murder of the aforesaid victims.

4. On receipt of an information over telephone from PW 8, at 18.35 hours on that date, the Officer-in-Charge (PW 13) of Hariharpara Police Station rushed with his force to the place of occurrence at Dilalpur village under Hariharpara Police Station after making an entry in the general diary of the above police station. After reaching the place of occurrence he found there the dead bodies of the aforesaid two victims.

5. PW 1 submitted a written complaint to him at the place of occurrence at 21.00 hours. He forwarded the above written complaint to Hariharpara Police Station through Home Guard No.90, namely, Nripen Das. Formal First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) bearing Hariharpara P.S. Case no.62 of 1998 dated June 20, 1998, was drawn on the basis of the above written complaint after making entry in the general diary bearing G.D.E. no.639 dated June 20, 1998 at 22.15 hours. According to the written compliant, the death of the aforesaid two victims was preceded by an incident of hurling bomb at the house of Kheder Sk. as also ransacking of his house at the instance of the appellants and their associates which had taken place at 08.00 hours on the same date i.e. on June 20, 1998.

6. PW 14 was engaged as Investigating Officer to investigate into the matter. The PW 13 prepared inquest reports dated June 20, 1998 after conducting surothal examination on the dead bodies of the aforesaid deceased persons at 21.30 hours. The PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 7 were the witnesses of the above inquest reports.

7. The dead bodies of the aforesaid victims were sent to Berhampur Police Morgue through Montaj Molla, Home Guard no.495 attached to Hariharpara Police













































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