2017 Supreme(Cal) 335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, MD.MUMTAZ KHAN, JJ.
Nirapada Dhara & Others - Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA No. 475 of 2010
Decided On : 03-05-2017
For the Appellants :Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate, Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay, Priyanka Dutta, Paulomi Banerjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Manjit Singh, Ld. Public Prosecutor, Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Advocate.
Headnote:
FIR - Assault - Sections 342/323/325/34 IPC - The court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment, order of conviction and sentence, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
A written complaint was received in the Haripal Police Station alleging that the appellants assaulted the deceased on October 15, 2000, resulting in his death on October 25, 2000. The complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of three days, and there was an additional unexplained delay of eight days in forwarding the complaint to the Court. The presence of police at the place of occurrence, removal of the deceased to the hospital, and the disclosure of the appellants' names by the complainant raised doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delays in lodging the complaint and forwarding it to the Court, along with contradictions in the date of occurrence, created suspicion about the prosecution case. The court also noted the absence of independent witnesses and the failure to register an FIR at the time of the incident.
Issues: The issues included the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, contradictions in the date of occurrence, absence of independent witnesses, and failure to register an FIR at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delays and contradictions raised doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution case, and the absence of independent witnesses and failure to register an FIR at the time of the incident further weakened the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment, order of conviction and sentence, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act)–cum Additional Session Judge, Hooghly, in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2002, arising out of Sessions Case No. 138 of 2002, on July 26, 2010, convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentence dated July 27, 2010 sentencing each one of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months each as also convicting each of them for commission of offence under Section 342 read with Section 34 I.P.C. sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of one month each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as under:-
3. A written complaint was received in the Haripal Police Station from one Sri Bhadreswar Dhonk (PW 1) on October 18, 2000, at 12.05 hours to the effect that on October 15, 2000, at about 22.00 hours appellant Nirapada Dhara came to his residence and took his fourth son Sukumar Dhonk (since deceased) to Maliya Miloni Natya Teertha Club hauling him from sleep. The deceased was inhumanly assaulted by the appellants with lathi, rod and electrocution on the alleged ground of theft.
4. Subsequently, the PW 1 came to know from one Gadadhar Mukherjee, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Haripal Police Station (PW 12) that his aforesaid son had been removed to Chinsurah Hospital, Hooghly at M.S.I. Ward in a critical condition. According to the above written complaint the appellants took the leading part in making the aforesaid attempt to kill his aforesaid son instigating 100/150 persons in a state of intoxication. After receiving the information from some of the persons an Officer of Haripal Police Station reached the place of occurrence with his team and admitted the deceased to hospital in unconscious condition.
5. Formal FIR bearing Haripal P.S. Case No.113 dated October 18, 2000, was registered in the above police station at 12.05 hours against the appellants for commission of offence punishable under sections 342/323/325/34 IPC after incorporating an entry in the General Diary bearing No.704 on the above date. It was forwarded to the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate concerned on October 26, 2000.
6. According to the material on record, the aforesaid Sukumar Dhonk was initially brought to the Public Health Center, Haripal on October 17, 2000. Then he was removed to Chandanagar Sub Divisional Hospital on the same day. Thereafter, he was removed to Chinsurah Sadar Hospital. He was further removed to the Calcutta Medical College & Hospital on October 18, 2000. He succumbed to the injuries in the above hospital on October 25, 2000. Inquest examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW 19 on October 27, 2000, at the Calcutta Police Morgue with reference to Haripal P.S. Case No. 112 dated October, 2000, on identification of the dead body by Probhat Kumar Halder, Constable No.H-49 (PW 11) and Dilip Dhonk (PW 3), elder brother of the deceased. According to the opinion of the autopsy surgeon (PW 19), the cause of death of the deceased person was due to effects of head injury which was ante mortem in nature and there was evidence of electrocution which was also ante mortem in nature.
7. PW 20 was entrusted with the responsibility of conducting investigation. He submitted charge sheet bearing No.65/2001 dated August 26, 2001, against the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 342/323/325/304/34 I.P.C. On May 7, 2004 charge for commission of offence under Sections 325/342/304