Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 588
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
Manoranjan Mahato & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondents
C.R.A. No. 336 of 1987
Decided On : 29-11-2016
For the Amicus Curiae : Ms. Sreeparna Das
For the State : Mr. S. Dutta
The court held that the evidence of eye-witnesses, when corroborated by medical evidence, can be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 304 PART II/149, 324/149, 379/149 AND 149 IPC - DECEASED AND HIS SON ASSAULTED BY APPELLANTS - EVIDENCE OF EYE-WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF APPELLANTS NOS.1,2,3 & 7 UPHELD - OTHER APPELLANTS ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Prafulla Mahato and his son Jogesh were assaulted by the appellants while they were trying to prevent the appellants from catching fish from their pond. The appellants chased the deceased and his son and assaulted them in front of the house of an eye-witness, Kanai Hembram. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had been able to prove its case of assault on the deceased and P.W.10 beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant nos. 1,2,3 & 7. However, the court found that the charge of theft of fish could not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had been able to prove its case of assault on the deceased and P.W.10 beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants? 2. Whether the charge of theft of fish could be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.10, to hold that the prosecution had been able to prove its case of assault on the deceased and P.W.10 beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant nos. 1,2,3 & 7. 2. The court held that the charge of theft of fish could not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants as no stolen fish was recovered from their possession.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant nos.1,2,3 & 7 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II)/149, Sections 324/149 and Section 148 IPC. However, they were acquitted of the charge under Sections 379/149 IPC. The other appellants namely, appellant nos.4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Report is filed on behalf of the State wherefrom it appears that the counter case registered at the behest of the appellants had ended in acquittal. Report is kept with the record.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 23.6.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. VII/October/1985 convicting the appellants for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II/148, 324/149, 379/149 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offences punishable under Section 148, 324/149 and 379/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences to run concurrently.
3. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 31.7.1983 at about 1.30 P.M. Prafulla Mahato received an information that fishes were being caught under the leadership of Manoranjan Mahato and others from his pond at Uttara Mouza. The miscreants were armed with bows, arrows, tangi, ballam etc. Prafulla along with his son Jogesh went and resisted the miscreants from catching fish. At that time, the appellants tried to dip Prafulla in the water. Jogesh managed to rescue Prafulla and as they were proceeding towards their house, the appellants chased them. Out of fear, they entered into the house of Kanai Hembram. The miscreants thereafter encircled the house of Kanai. Manoranjan dragged Prafulla from the house and at the time Joyram Mahato assaulted him with arrow on the left side of his chest. Thereafter Bijan and Manoranjan assaulted Prafulla with tangi on the legs. Bankim assaulted Prafulla on both of his legs when Jogesh tried to save his father. Manoranjan assaulted Jogesh on his head with tangi which was handed over by Bankim. Thereafter, Bijan assaulted Jogesh on the head and on different parts of the body with the help of tangi. Both the injured persons were taken towards the pond. Subsequently, Prafulla succumbed to his injuries and died. First Information Report was registered by Nirupama Mahata, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 148, 379/149, 302/149, 324/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 148, 379/149, 302/149, 324/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The defence of the appellants was that Prafulla and his son Jogesh and Chandrakanta had murdered Gunadhar Roy in their pond at Uttara Mouza on 31.7.1983 at noon and the accused Sitaram Das had lodged a criminal case being Jhargram P.S. Case No.21 dated 31.7.1983 was registered against them. The present case is a counter case to the aforesaid case and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case.
5. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The appellants, however, did not examine any witness of their own to probabilise their defence. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgment and order dated 23.6.1987 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as Ms. Das, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the evidence on record of the prosecution witnesses suffers from various embellishments and contradictions. She further submitted that the present case is a counter case to Jhargram P.S. Case No.21 dated 31.7.1983 where Gunadhar Roy was murdered by Prafulla (the deceased) and his sons. It is also submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 and 10 are highly artificial and ought not to be relied upon. She prayed for acquittal of the appellants.
6. On th
