Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
RAKESH TIWARI, SHIVAKANT PRASAD, JJ.
Bhagirath Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 45 of 2015
Decided On : 23-06-2017
For the Appellant :Pratik Bhattacharya, Dulal Chandra Sarkar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Saibal Bapuli, Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Advocates
The last seen theory and the absence of a reasonable explanation from the accused can be crucial in establishing guilt in a murder case.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution's case was based on the complaint of the deceased's husband, who alleged that the accused had called his wife out of the room in the middle of the night and she was later found dead with marks of injury on her neck and throat.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty based on the testimony of the deceased's son, who witnessed the accused calling his mother out of the room and threatening him with a knife. The court also noted the absence of a reasonable explanation from the accused regarding the events of the night, leading to the conclusion that the accused alone had abducted and killed the deceased.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, contradictions in witness testimony, and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the last seen theory, where the accused was seen with the deceased shortly before her death, and the absence of a reasonable explanation from the accused. The court also highlighted that deficiencies in the investigation did not justify a total rejection of the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the accused for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shivakant Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 and 22.12.2014 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Basirhat, North 24-Parganas convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default S.I. for six months in S.T. No. 07(7)/ 2003 corresponding to S.C. No. 31(12)/2001.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 17.02.1997 at about 13:15 hours one Ranjan Kr. Mondal of Village-Balti Paschimpara, P.S.-Swarupnagar called at the P.S. and lodged a written complaint to the effect that on 17.02.1997 at 10:00 hours on receiving an information of death of his wife at Machlandapur Railway Station, he rushed to the house and on reaching there the complainant heard the fact from his son Nityananda Mondal (P.W.-2) that on 16.02.1997 at about 20:00 hours his wife along with children were sleeping after taking night meal and at about 2:00 hours accused Bhagirath of the same village called his wife to come outside room. Nityananda Mondal, son of the complainant saw the accused to enter into the room asking his mother to come out from the room, who held out threat on his son with dire consequences showing a knife, if he makes any voice.
3. Nityananda Mondal noticed his mother going out of the room out of fear at night and in the next day morning at about 05:00 hours he woke up and found the dead body of his mother lying on the verandah of their house with marks of injury on the neck and the throat. The voice of the accused Bhagirath was very much known to his son Nityananda Mondal (P.W.-2) as he used to visit the house of the complainant in his absence and harassed his wife.
4. On the above complaint, Swarupnagar P.S. case no. 14 of 1997 dated 17.2.1997 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused appellant.
5. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet no. 58 of 1997 dated 18.9.1997 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. Subsequently, the case was committed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Basirhat, North 24-Parganas to the Court of Sessions and after taking cognizance as per Section 193 Cr.P.C. learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial and disposal by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Basirhat, North 24-Parganas and the charge against the appellant was framed under Section 302 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To bring home charge against the accused appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.
8. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused appellant was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pertaining to incriminating evidence against him which he denied as false and pleaded innocence but declined to adduce any evidence in defence. The Learned Trial Court below after hearing both the sides and perusal of the evidence-on-record, held the accused guilty of the offence charged under Section 302 IPC by judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 and 22.12.2014, convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default S.I. for six months and further ordered that the appellant Bhagirath Sarkar shall not be released from jail custody unless he has completed 20 years of imprisonment.
9. The accused appellant assailed the impugned judgment inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge by convicting the appellant on the basis of sketchy evidence of only interested witnesses adduced by the prosecution has committed grave prejudice to the appellant
10. Now, the point for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment is tenable in law and in facts and whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate charge against the acc
