Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajiv Sharma & Asha Arora, JJ.
Shyamal Mondal – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A 319 of 2009
Decided On : 24-08-2016
HOMICIDE - CULPABILITY - SECTION 304 PART-I IPC - EVIDENCE - OCULAR WITNESS - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - NON-SEIZURE OF WEAPON - EFFECT
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant and his brother had a quarrel with the deceased, the appellant's cousin, over family matters. The appellant and his brother allegedly assaulted the deceased with a lathi and an iron rod, resulting in his death. The appellant's defense was that he was falsely implicated and that the deceased's brother was solely responsible for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the Trial Court's conviction, holding that the appellant's guilt was established by credible evidence. The Court relied on the testimony of an eyewitness, the deceased's mother, who stated that she saw the appellant assault the deceased with a lathi. The Court also considered the medical evidence, which showed that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries consistent with being struck with a blunt object.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC was justified. 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's mother was reliable and provided strong evidence of the appellant's guilt. The Court noted that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and had a clear view of the events that transpired. 2. The Court also found that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimony and established that the deceased had died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the appellant. 3. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the non-seizure of the weapon of offence was fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court held that while the weapon should have been seized, its non-seizure did not render the prosecution's evidence unreliable.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence.
Arora, J.
1. The subject of challenge in the present appeal at the instance of the accused/appellant is the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th March, 2009 and 21st March, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Malda, in Sessions Case No. 7(1) of 2008 arising out of Sessions Case No. 374 of 2007 whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 304 Part I of the IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 323 of the IPC.
2. Prosecution version, bereft of unnecessary details is that on 31st August, 2002 at 00.15 hours the complainant Padia Mandal, mother of the deceased victim Rajen Mandal of village Harishpur within Police Station English Bazar in District Malda lodged a written complaint at English Bazar Police Station alleging that on 30th August, 2002 at about 6 p.m. her elder son Khagendranath Mandal and his son Shyamal Mandal had a quarrel with her fourth son Rajen Mandal regarding family matters pursuant to which Khagendranath Mandal and Shyamal Mandal inflicted blows with lathi and iron rod on the person of Rajen Mandal. When the complainant tried to save the victim, accused Shyamal Mandal assaulted her with iron rod on her left hand. It is the further case of prosecution that the victim Rajen Mandal was severely injured due to the assault and succumbed to the injuries before he could be moved to the hospital.
3.On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint (Exhibit-3) of Padia Mandal, Sub-Inspector of Police Anil Kumar Roy (PW 7) registered English Bazar Police Station Case No. 304 of 2002 dated 31.08.2002 under Sections 304/323/34 of the IPC against accused Khagendranath Mandal and Shyamal Mandal. Investigation into the case by Sub-Inspector Subir Karmakar (PW 17) culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under sections 304/323/34 of the IPC against both the accused persons namely, Khagendranath Mandal and Shyamal Mandal.
4. It appears from the Judgment of the Trial Court that accused Khagendranath Mandal died during the pendency of the case. Consequently the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Malda with only one accused namely, Shyamal Mandal who is the appellant before us.
5. The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 of the IPC. Being so arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the indictment and claimed to be tried. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The defence of the accused/appellant as is projected from the suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination as well as from the answers given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the CrPC) is complete innocence, false implication and outright denial of the prosecution case. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Malda by the impugned Judgment and order convicted the accused for the offences punishable under sections 304 Part-I and 323 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 304 Part I of the IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month fo
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
