Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Arjun Ghorai & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondents
C.R.A. No. 20 of 2015
Decided On : 03-11-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Moinak Bakshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti, Mr. Sanjoy Bardhan
The legal principle established was the consideration of supervening factors and lack of pre-meditation in modifying the conviction and sentencing of the appellants.
Headnote:
Juvenility - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 304 Part I/34 - Section 326/307/34 - Section 302/34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the victim, who died after being stabbed during an altercation over a longstanding property dispute. The appellants claimed innocence and false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the appellants were responsible for the victim's injury, it occurred in the course of an altercation and was not pre-meditated. The victim's death was hastened by supervening factors unrelated to the assault, leading to a modification of the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I/34 IPC.
Issues: The key issues included the juvenility of appellant no.1, the establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the impact of supervening factors on the victim's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of the altercation, the long-standing property dispute, and the medical evidence of supervening factors contributing to the victim's death. It applied the legal principle that the person causing injuries leading to death is liable, but also considered the lack of pre-meditation and the impact of supervening factors.
Final Decision: The conviction of appellant no.1 was upheld, but the sentence was set aside due to his juvenile status at the time of the offense. The conviction of appellant no.2 was modified, and the sentence reduced based on the circumstances of the altercation and his role in the incident.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Report is submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, First Court, Contai, with regard to the age of the appellant no. 1 as it was claimed that he was a minor at the time of commission of offence. From the report it appears that appellant no.1 was found to be 17 years and 11 days at the time of commission of offence and, therefore, he was held to be juvenile in conflict with law. Such report is kept on record.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 21.11.2014 and 24.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, First Court, Contai, convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more.
3. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 03.06.2005 while the deceased, Swapan Kumar Ghorai, was taking his wife Kousalya Ghorai to the doctor. The appellants accosted them and dragged down Swapan Kumar Ghorai towards their house over the issue of old litigation. An altercation was ensured between themselves whereupon appellant no. 1, Arjun Ghorai, the juvenile stabbed Swapan Kumar Ghorai with his knife on the chest while Manoranjan Ghorai held the hands of the victim. Upon hue and cry being raised, neighbours ran to the spot and the appellants fled away. The victim was initially taken to Mugberia Primary Health Center for treatment and thereafter shifted to Tamluk Hospital where he was admitted and finally to P.G. Hospital where he expired on 30.08.2005. While the victim was in hospital, first information report was lodged by his wife Kousalya Ghorai being -Police Station Case No. 32 of 2005 dated 03.06.2005 under Sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon death of the victim, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Upon completion of investigation charge sheets was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, First court, Contai for trail and disposal. Charges were framed against the appellants and under Sections 326/34, and under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 302/34. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The defense of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal.
4. In course of hearing of the appeal, plea was raised as to juvenility of appellant no.1. Hence, direction was given upon the trial court to make an enquiry on such plea. Pursuant to such enquiry, aforesaid report has been submitted stating that the appellant no.1 was 17 years 11 days at the time of commission of offence and therefore, a juvenile in conflict with law.
5. Relying on the said report learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the benefit of juvenility ought to be extended to appellant no.1. That apart, he further submitted that the evidence on record does not establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. There is enmity between the appellants on the one hand and the victim and his family on the other hand and therefore reliance on the sole eyewitness i.e. PW1 namely, the wife of the victim to bring home the guilt of the appellant unwarranted. It is further submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses would show that the incident arose in the course of an altercation by and between the parties and therefore, the finding of guilt of murder against the appellants is unjustified. He also submitted that the medical evidence does not establish that the death was not the direct cause of the injuries suffered by the victim and that the
